British sailors taken by Iran

[Bettina]

Bettina,

 

I apologise unreservedly for my former harshness. I have been reprimanded and made to see the error of my ways. I am forgetting my manners and at my age should know better.

 

Please do not hold it against me. I'm a nice guy really!

 

Sorry I didn't see this until now but I've been busy with school. I saw your reply as "passionate and emotional" and took no offense. I am that way too and in fact I was about to "passionately and emotionally" tell you what I think of the middle east and why, but now I won't.

 

I don't like the fact that you were reprimanded for your comments to me which is why I no longer post here as much as I used to. There are too many policemen, too quick to shoot, which makes me uncomfortable. Your ok with me.

 

Bettina

[Pangloss]

"What does the tactical situation on the ground have to do with the handling of the political aftermath? I don't understand this correlation at all."

 

The only relation is that people are slagging off both without proposing any sugestions as to how they might have been handled better.

 

(Of course, the overall tactics of this conflict are political so the two are not totally unrelated)

The politics of selling the stories to the newspapers is another matter- it could clearly have been done better, but it's a relatively minor point.

 

I can understand your frustration at hearing comments made in that manner, but I'm afraid that we can't enforce something like that. It's not SFN policy to require people to have suggestions for improvement before they can post an opinion on a subject. Though I think sometimes that perhaps it should be!

[bombus]

Sorry, but it still smells like a conspiracy theory to me... I can't believe it without evidence.

 

OK. Obviously stuff like this is within the realm of conspiracy theories, but it's not 'out there' stuff at all, and there is lots of circumstantial evidence to suggest it is the case. First off there is:

 

"The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a neo-conservative think tank with strong ties to the American Enterprise Institute. PNAC's web site says it was "established in the spring of 1997" as "a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership."

 

PNAC's policy document, "Rebuilding America's Defences," openly advocates for total global military domination. Many PNAC members hold highest-level positions in the George W. Bush administration.

 

The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3)."

 

For more info try: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century

 

And as for the US engaging in war for profit check out the quote below:

 

"I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our countries most agile military force - the Marine Corp...I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914...Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys...I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers...I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests...I helped make Honduras 'right' for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded honors, medals, promotions. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. We operated on three continents." - US Major General Smedley.

 

I remember seeing a newsreel about US forces in Somalia (Black Hawk down etc). One of the soldiers said to the camera something along the lines of "The only reason we're here is to look after the profits of American companies". It was around 1991 (I think). This stuff is still going on today, just as it always has! I'm tellin you, it's no whacko conspiracy theory!

 

P.S. While just checking to see if US General Smedley actually existed I found this website!

 

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[ParanoiA]

And as for the US engaging in war for profit check out the quote below:

 

"I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our countries most agile military force - the Marine Corp...I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914...Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys...I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers...I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests...I helped make Honduras 'right' for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded honors, medals, promotions. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. We operated on three continents." - US Major General Smedley.

 

I remember seeing a newsreel about US forces in Somalia (Black Hawk down etc). One of the soldiers said to the camera something along the lines of "The only reason we're here is to look after the profits of American companies". It was around 1991 (I think). This stuff is still going on today, just as it always has! I'm tellin you, it's no whacko conspiracy theory!

 

P.S. While just checking to see if US General Smedley actually existed I found this website!

 

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/ar...risaracket.htm

 

But we already know this. There's nothing incriminating here. Most countries fight to protect their "monetary" and "material" assets, no matter where they are, if they can. You're anti-capitalist, but you're still materialistic. Your country has to be if it's going to do business with the world. You also war for profit.

 

See, you read that paragraph and focus on "business this" and "profit that" and "companies there" - but I read that paragraph and focus on the fact that those businesses and companies serve people. People work there. People's lives improve with economic growth. He made things safe for people to work and live. People's lives revolve around resources, and those businesses are resources.

 

I have no shame in profit or capitalism. So, snipets like that don't mean anything. You have to throw in an argument or else we're just going to nod and wait for the next sentence...

[ParanoiA]

PNAC's policy document, "Rebuilding America's Defences," openly advocates for total global military domination. Many PNAC members hold highest-level positions in the George W. Bush administration.

 

Careful how you phrase that. Maybe I need to read it again, it's been awhile since I've looked it over, but I thought the global military domination was about equipment and technology - not physcially going out and dominating the globe.

 

The funny thing about PNAC is it feeds more conspiratorial minds than anyone else. It doesn't really say anything that you wouldn't expect. Of course we want to be the biggest, baddest country on earth forever and ever - duh..who doesn't? Of course we need to deal with NK, Iran, Syria and so forth. There's nothing revolutionary in it's context. It's just a basic plan, open for all to see, to remain a superpower and limit the possibilities of war. You may disagree, but there's nothing freaky about it.

[Pangloss]

That is one of the points raised by PNAC critics over the years, that they advocate global domination. It's certainly a point of view. What conclusions one draws from their positions are matters of opinion. I've always felt that their position was a reasonable one, if disagreeable, and stopped short of what their critics claimed. This is mainstream policy-making, not conspiracy territory. But I can understand why people have such high emotion over it. Their policy statements have, at times, been somewhat brazen compared with those of other conservative movements.

 

The Wikipedia has a summary and numerous articles about PNAC here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC

 

And PNAC's web site is here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

 

I notice in looking at it just now that the Wikipedia article states that PNAC's role has been reduced by the failure in Iraq and is in decline, apparently with only one employee now. I hadn't heard that before.

[John Cuthber]

"Originally Posted by John Cuthber

"What does the tactical situation on the ground have to do with the handling of the political aftermath? I don't understand this correlation at all."

 

The only relation is that people are slagging off both without proposing any sugestions as to how they might have been handled better.

 

(Of course, the overall tactics of this conflict are political so the two are not totally unrelated)

The politics of selling the stories to the newspapers is another matter- it could clearly have been done better, but it's a relatively minor point.

I can understand your frustration at hearing comments made in that manner, but I'm afraid that we can't enforce something like that. It's not SFN policy to require people to have suggestions for improvement before they can post an opinion on a subject. Though I think sometimes that perhaps it should be! "

 

Thanks for that, in the meantime I will just have to take comfort from the fact that, since they aree not rushing to tell me how they would have done better, they are not able to. It's easier to see your country's servicemen and women (and even politicians) criticised by people who seem to have no knowledge, than by those who do.

 

Oh, by the way, can someone tell me does this

"You know, it's funny how people like to point out that half the world hates the US, but no one points out that it's only ONE part of that world that targets and kills civilians of that country. Why is it the rest of the world is expected to keep their heads, but the middle east gets a free pass?"

mean that only Middle East countries can get away with despotism and terrorism?

If so will someone let me know who moved Zimbabwe to the Middle East? It's not the only example, but it's probably one of the nastiest.

Or was the statement just nonsense in the first place?

[ParanoiA]

Oh, by the way, can someone tell me does this

"You know, it's funny how people like to point out that half the world hates the US, but no one points out that it's only ONE part of that world that targets and kills civilians of that country. Why is it the rest of the world is expected to keep their heads, but the middle east gets a free pass?"

mean that only Middle East countries can get away with despotism and terrorism?

If so will someone let me know who moved Zimbabwe to the Middle East? It's not the only example, but it's probably one of the nastiest.

Or was the statement just nonsense in the first place?

 

The US is being attacked by Zimbabwe? I think you ought to read my quote again or something because I'm not putting 2 and 2 together here...

[bombus]

See, you read that paragraph and focus on "business this" and "profit that" and "companies there" - but I read that paragraph and focus on the fact that those businesses and companies serve people. People work there. People's lives improve with economic growth. He made things safe for people to work and live. People's lives revolve around resources, and those businesses are resources.

 

I have no shame in profit or capitalism. So, snipets like that don't mean anything. You have to throw in an argument or else we're just going to nod and wait for the next sentence...

 

Yeah, but you miss the point. This is profit and benefit for Western companies and people AT THE EXPENSE of the people in the countries they are messing with. The profits leave the country to make westerners rich. That's why the West IS rich! This is why the middle east, many in South America, many in Africa etc hate the West. We rip them off. This is the type of thing that fuels terrorism.

 

Take (for example) the fruit industry of Guatamala. In 1953 the Govt. confiscated 400,000 acres of uncultivated land from United Fruit and began to redistribute that land to 100,000 peasants so that they could feed themselves. In 1954 The United States conspired with United Fruit to back a coup which toppled the Guatemalan govt. The land reform was reversed, United Fruit got its land back and popular organisations were crushed with thousands being killed.

 

Between 1954 and 1967 over 100,000 people in opposition to the government have been killed by Govt forces (according to the British Parliaments Human Rights Commission).

 

Between 1981 and 1983 the native Indians were persecuted by the Western backed government with their subsistence crops being burnt, over 440 villages destroyed. At least 100,000 Indians fled to Mexico with half a million becoming internal refugees and god knows how many killed. This is so the land can be sold to Multinationals to grow cheap fruit for export to the West.

 

Economic development in these countries by Multinationals makes them poorer, not richer! That's how the world works!

 

Why do think Ethiopia was starving in the 1980's? - Because all the best land was not used to grow food to feed the population, but used to grow cheap coffee for the West (and their not even allowed by World Trade Organisation rules to refine the coffee themselves, they are only ALLOWED to sell the raw beans, so lose out on the processing where most of the profit is made). When the rains didn't come in the south millions died, even though Ethiopia would be perfectly capable of feeding itself if we left them alone. We also sell their corrupt Governments arms to fuel wars. And when it all becomes a mess we offer them charity!

 

No wonder they hate us!!

[bombus]

Careful how you phrase that. Maybe I need to read it again, it's been awhile since I've looked it over, but I thought the global military domination was about equipment and technology - not physcially going out and dominating the globe.

 

The funny thing about PNAC is it feeds more conspiratorial minds than anyone else. It doesn't really say anything that you wouldn't expect. Of course we want to be the biggest, baddest country on earth forever and ever - duh..who doesn't? Of course we need to deal with NK, Iran, Syria and so forth. There's nothing revolutionary in it's context. It's just a basic plan, open for all to see, to remain a superpower and limit the possibilities of war. You may disagree, but there's nothing freaky about it.

 

My main point was the fact that Countries DO plan far ahead. I however, find these guys very scary. They seem to assume they know what's best for the world, and when you see how messed up US culture is (and please don't try to say it aint), I seriously doubt it.

[bombus]

But we already know this. There's nothing incriminating here. Most countries fight to protect their "monetary" and "material" assets, no matter where they are, if they can. You're anti-capitalist, but you're still materialistic. Your country has to be if it's going to do business with the world. You also war for profit.

 

The problem with that argument is that there is no moral basis for it, only one based on, well, greed basically.

 

If its OK to kill people for greed then we'd have to admit we ARE evil. If we are evil then the US is indeed 'the great satan' as the Ayatollah Khomeinei said.

 

I'd rather not believe that. I would like us to be GOOD.

 

And there was me saying earlier that this isn't Star Wars or LOTR!

[bombus]

Sorry I didn't see this until now but I've been busy with school. I saw your reply as "passionate and emotional" and took no offense. I am that way too and in fact I was about to "passionately and emotionally" tell you what I think of the middle east and why, but now I won't.

 

I don't like the fact that you were reprimanded for your comments to me which is why I no longer post here as much as I used to. There are too many policemen, too quick to shoot, which makes me uncomfortable. Your ok with me.

 

Bettina

 

Thanks. U OK with Me 2. But read Susan George 'How the other half dies'.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, but you miss the point. This is profit and benefit for Western companies and people AT THE EXPENSE of the people in the countries they are messing with. The profits leave the country to make westerners rich. That's why the West IS rich! This is why the middle east, many in South America, many in Africa etc hate the West. We rip them off. This is the type of thing that fuels terrorism.

 

Yes! Which is exactly why I keep reiterating that their governments didn't have any problems doing business with us. If they have a problem with it - they should take it up with thier government! Quit selling out to America!!

 

I don't go bomb britain because I don't like the business america does with them. That's asinine! That's also a result of redirecting the problem via class envy.

 

As for the rest, I'll have to read that for myself and comment later. I sense a lot of spin in that recital of yours. Somehow, I'm betting there's more to the story than what you've shared.

 

My main point was the fact that Countries DO plan far ahead. I however, find these guys very scary. They seem to assume they know what's best for the world, and when you see how messed up US culture is (and please don't try to say it aint), I seriously doubt it.

 

Yeah, I gave it a quick look over again and I forgot how they get all fluffy about how America's Leadership is good for america and the world - WTF? I don't want to lead nothing. In fact, I'd like to go back to isolationism, back when Europe was giving us shit for NOT getting involved. Maybe they'll remember all this and not ask us anymore - haha!

 

But anyway, I agree. It does smack of imperialism disguised as "leadership". I love how they throw that word around trying to soften the verbiage.

 

I just like the whole military spending and development thing. I think it's important to be the strongest militarily - with the intention of never using it.

[ParanoiA]

The problem with that argument is that there is no moral basis for it' date=' only one based on, well, greed basically.

 

If its OK to kill people for greed then we'd have to admit we ARE evil. If we are evil then the US is indeed 'the great satan' as the Ayatollah Khomeinei said.

 

I'd rather not believe that. I would like us to be GOOD.[/quote']

 

We are evil. So are you. Or...you could just admit you're a product of nature programmed for selfish preservation.

[bombus]

Yes! Which is exactly why I keep reiterating that their governments didn't have any problems doing business with us. If they have a problem with it - they should take it up with thier government! Quit selling out to America!!

 

Yeah, but they can't take it up with their governments because their governments would just kill them with weapons and support from the West (principally the US), and if they do manage to topple these governments the West just puts sactions in place and funds coups to get rid of the chosen government. C/F Nicaragua!

 

 

 

As for the rest, I'll have to read that for myself and comment later. I sense a lot of spin in that recital of yours. Somehow, I'm betting there's more to the story than what you've shared.

 

Ok, I'd suggest you read Susan George ' how the other half dies' as a good starting point. Its a well known and well respected book. Maybe a bit out of date in some ways but basically still applicable to today. She has written other books since.

 

Yeah, I gave it a quick look over again and I forgot how they get all fluffy about how America's Leadership is good for america and the world - WTF? I don't want to lead nothing. In fact, I'd like to go back to isolationism, back when Europe was giving us shit for NOT getting involved. Maybe they'll remember all this and not ask us anymore - haha!

 

But anyway, I agree. It does smack of imperialism disguised as "leadership". I love how they throw that word around trying to soften the verbiage.

 

I just like the whole military spending and development thing. I think it's important to be the strongest militarily - with the intention of never using it.

 

Well, maybe, but do you know what the current US annual budget for weapons is? 650 Billion! Makes Bill gates look like a pauper. You could solve most of the worlds problems with that and remove any argument for terrorists to carry out their deeds.

[bombus]

We are evil. So are you. Or...you could just admit you're a product of nature programmed for selfish preservation.

 

Our genes also make us GOOD. It's our evolution that makes us compassionate and caring for others and we can even extend this to other species. It's what makes humans unique and great! It's what being a human should be all about. Lets stop being evil and try to be good!

[ecoli]

Well, maybe, but do you know what the current US annual budget for weapons is? 650 Billion! Makes Bill gates look like a pauper. You could solve most of the worlds problems with that and remove any argument for terrorists to carry out their deeds.

 

Since when has giving people money helped them solve their problems? They just get dependent on handouts. We want people to able to take care of their own problems... I definitely wouldn't object to helping them do this, but the how is important.

 

Our genes also make us GOOD. It's our evolution that makes us compassionate and caring for others and we can even extend this to other species. It's what makes humans unique and great! It's what being a human should be all about. Lets stop being evil and try to be good!

 

this gets into a sticky area of relative morality and perception of that. After all, the terrorists believe that blowing themselves up and killing civilians is good. The conservatives believe it is good to preserve american interests and trade oversees... it's all relative.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, but they can't take it up with their governments because their governments would just kill them with weapons and support from the West (principally the US), and if they do manage to topple these governments the West just puts sactions in place and funds coups to get rid of the chosen government. C/F Nicaragua!

 

Oh, well in that case it's perfectly fine to redirect your anger due to logistics right?

 

Gee...you know...it almost sounds like they're not in the majority huh? We only put sanctions in place for dangerous regimes that have shown aggression - we learned that from watching europe allow hitler to grow and slaughter thousands before lifting a finger. We kind of have this thing now about letting aggressors get big and bulky before we start doing something about it...

 

Nice try, but your spin is making me dizzy. These people that have a problem with doing business with the west seem to be in the minority - so why should anyone support or expect them to have their way? That's silly. Screw what the majority of their countrymen want, just concentrate on the pockets of extremists?? What on earth would be righteous about that?

 

My point still stands. They have a problem with their own government that they're redirecting towards the west - that's propaganda at work. Talk about the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing...or not caring rather...

 

Well, maybe, but do you know what the current US annual budget for weapons is? 650 Billion! Makes Bill gates look like a pauper. You could solve most of the worlds problems with that and remove any argument for terrorists to carry out their deeds.

 

No couldn't solve the world's problems with that and would not remove a single argument for terrorism. The US gives aid, money AND actual labor, people, supplies, equipment and etc. We don't get jack squat for that. Nobody even knows we do it, or cares when we do.

 

If I had my way, I would give the proverbial finger to the middle east and withdraw completely from that region of the world and leave them for you to deal with. They would still attack us too...and your country would probably enjoy it too. And you would still have resentment misdirection arguments to justify it all...

 

Our genes also make us GOOD. It's our evolution that makes us compassionate and caring for others and we can even extend this to other species. It's what makes humans unique and great! It's what being a human should be all about. Lets stop being evil and try to be good!

 

I completely agree. Now, if you would turn and yell that towards the south, there's a continent of racist murderers that could stand to hear that. They won't care, but it would be fun to watch you try to convince them.

 

I think this kind of reasoning is aimed at the west because they know we're the only ones that could possibly listen......sorry, but it takes two.

[ParanoiA]

I knew you spun that story bombus...

 

Take (for example) the fruit industry of Guatamala. In 1953 the Govt. confiscated 400,000 acres of uncultivated land from United Fruit and began to redistribute that land to 100,000 peasants so that they could feed themselves. In 1954 The United States conspired with United Fruit to back a coup which toppled the Guatemalan govt. The land reform was reversed, United Fruit got its land back and popular organisations were crushed with thousands being killed.

 

Yes, and you conveniently left out that Arbenz was aligning with communism. At that time, communism was the most feared adversary. We had been declared "crushed" by a ruthless soviet leader and all of this coming off of the heals of WWII.

 

Again, it's easy to sit here now, in 2007 and judge people's fears and insecurites in the late 50's.

 

Diane Stanley, a former US diplomat and a daughter of an employee of UFCO, mentions the benefits, typical of capitalism:

 

Most accounts about the banana company have also failed to describe the significant contribution that United Fruit made to Guatemala's human and economic development. In addition to providing employment to tens of thousands of workers and paying them the nation's best rural wages, the Company also offered its employees excellent medical care, rent-free housing, and six years of free schooling for countless children. By clearing and draining thousands of acres of jungle that are today among the country's most productive farm lands, United Fruit converted Guatemala into a major banana producer, thereby ending the country's unhealthy dependence on its exports of coffee. The Company's pioneering work in eliminating malaria and other tropical diseases early in the twentieth century also demonstrated that Guatemala's sparsely inhabited coastal areas offered rich, previously unexploited agricultural zones. Ultimately, the taxes and salaries that the United Fruit Company paid, and the millions of dollars of foreign exchange earnings that it annually generated, impacted in an important way on Guatemala's economy.

 

Now that's just taken from wikipedia.

 

And the only subsequent point here is that there really is two sides to every story. We're not a bunch of evil capitalists that roam the earth devouring resources and pillaging innocent people without a care - all for money.

 

We're also not a country full of do-gooders that roam the earth showering resources and replenishing food and life all over the world without a care for our own well being.

 

Instead, we're just like you...we are good and bad, and we try to be better. We want to be helpful, but we expect to eat. We are selfish in our preservation and development, hungry for security - just like everyone else on the globe - but we'll lend a hand to help in times of catastrophe and give back just enough to feel good about ourselves.

 

Look in the mirror and you'll see us...

[bombus]

I knew you spun that story bombus...

 

 

 

Yes, and you conveniently left out that Arbenz was aligning with communism.

 

At that time, communism was the most feared adversary.

 

Ever wondered why? Because communism threatened profits for the rich!

 

 

 

Diane Stanley, a former US diplomat and a daughter of an employee of UFCO, mentions the benefits, typical of capitalism:

 

Most accounts about the banana company have also failed to describe the significant contribution that United Fruit made to Guatemala's human and economic development. In addition to providing employment to tens of thousands of workers and paying them the nation's best rural wages, the Company also offered its employees excellent medical care, rent-free housing, and six years of free schooling for countless children. By clearing and draining thousands of acres of jungle that are today among the country's most productive farm lands, United Fruit converted Guatemala into a major banana producer, thereby ending the country's unhealthy dependence on its exports of coffee. The Company's pioneering work in eliminating malaria and other tropical diseases early in the twentieth century also demonstrated that Guatemala's sparsely inhabited coastal areas offered rich, previously unexploited agricultural zones. Ultimately, the taxes and salaries that the United Fruit Company paid, and the millions of dollars of foreign exchange earnings that it annually generated, impacted in an important way on Guatemala's economy.

 

Oh I see, so it was nothing to do with making money then, it was just doing good for the Guatemalan people! How silly of me. And it comes from a former US diplomat and a daughter of an employee of UFCO so it must be true. Of course, if United Fruit could do all that AND still make a profit just think how much Guatamala could have made if it had made the profits rather than a US company...

 

Now that's just taken from wikipedia.

 

So what?

 

We're not a bunch of evil capitalists that roam the earth devouring resources and pillaging innocent people without a care - all for money.

 

Er...., yup, I think you (collectively) are!

 

We're also not a country full of do-gooders that roam the earth showering resources and replenishing food and life all over the world without a care for our own well being.

 

Right!

 

Instead, we're just like you...we are good and bad, and we try to be better. We want to be helpful, but we expect to eat.

 

And don't Americans eat well! So much food that over half of it gets thrown, and yet your still the fattest nation on the planet, while half the world starves.

 

We are selfish in our preservation and development, hungry for security - just like everyone else on the globe - but we'll lend a hand to help in times of catastrophe and give back just enough to feel good about ourselves.

 

Look in the mirror and you'll see us...

 

I'm gonna get nowhere with this. I give up. If you really think you're right then call my bluff. Read Susan George, read Monbiot, read Pilger, heck, read Karl Marx! It may alter the way you think for the better.

 

All the best!

[Saryctos]

Ever wondered why? Because communism threatened profits for the rich!

Communism threatens the ability to even become rich.

[Pangloss]

Oh my, Saryctos. I am only an egg.

[ParanoiA]

Ever wondered why? Because communism threatened profits for the rich!

 

And our lives. (And communism still has its rich)

 

Oh I see, so it was nothing to do with making money then, it was just doing good for the Guatemalan people!

 

No, it's what we call a good deal. Both sides get something good out of it. It takes quite a selfish person not to see the sense in that.

 

Of course, if United Fruit could do all that AND still make a profit just think how much Guatamala could have made if it had made the profits rather than a US company...

 

Yeah, gee I wonder...it's almost like if they had done the work clearing the jungle and growing food themselves it could have been even more beneficial. Funny, a capitalistic country had to do it. It's almost like capitalism might be a really cool economic system....

 

Er...., yup, I think you (collectively) are!

 

That's quite an impressive point. I'm obviously outmatched by your intellect.

 

And don't Americans eat well! So much food that over half of it gets thrown, and yet your still the fattest nation on the planet, while half the world starves.

 

Gee..it's almost like they should try capitalism too. Oh, and maybe choosing food over weapons as a priority for their governments.

 

I'll tell you what. If I don't throw my food away, will they not starve?

 

I'm gonna get nowhere with this. I give up. If you really think you're right then call my bluff. Read Susan George, read Monbiot, read Pilger, heck, read Karl Marx! It may alter the way you think for the better.

 

Look, I don't think capitalism is perfect, or even ultimately good for the human race. But it's better than the alternatives. What makes you think that life is supposed to be all smooth and easy going? Life is hard man. And capitalism taps into the human spirit and maximizes a person's potential and drive. Good things happen when you do that. Greed can ugly it up, but all systems have bad symptoms, and I believe greed is the preferred problem over the others. Like Herbert Hoover said, the only thing wrong with capitalism is capitalists.

 

And where are you expecting to get? This is a discussion and debate forum. Agreeing on stuff is no fun.

[Sisyphus]

read Karl Marx!

 

I have read a good deal of Karl Marx, actually. I thought it was quite beautiful, and that he said a lot of true and insightful things about human beings, and really captured the bad sides of capitalism quite well. I also noticed that "Communism" in Marx's conception A) doesn't resemble any form of "Communism" which has actually existed since then, and B) was a prediction, not a suggestion.

[Saryctos]

Oh my, Saryctos. I am only an egg.

 

I'm not even going to attempt a guess at this one =P

So unless you'd like me to say them for insight into my thought process, just ask. Otherwise, an explanation would be much appreciated =)