More from Barney Frank

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3118801
Why do you think Russia invaded? Problem is the Afghanis are too ignorant to understand they don't need opium, they need a pipeline.
Well, if you look at the geography, you'll see that the Russians don't need a pipeline. They border the Caspian themselves. Plunk pipe in water, hook up to oil platform - done.
What the Russians were after in the long run was a warm water port - through Pakistan or Iran.
You see my point?
Both we and the Russians have designs on the country for different reasons. It is not up to US or the Russians to determine what the Afghanis need. It is up to them to decide, and to call them ignorant for not deciding in our favor is the height of arrogance. If they don't like either invasion, they have a right to respond with a one finger salute.

 

[uneverno]

Let the mayhem begin.
I'm going to get misquoted as defending the Taliban.
I am in no way defending them.
I am defending a principle, not a practice.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3119115
Well, if you look at the geography, you'll see that the Russians don't need a pipeline. They border the Caspian themselves. Plunk pipe in water, hook up to oil platform - done.
What the Russians were after in the long run was a warm water port - through Pakistan or Iran.
You see my point?
Both we and the Russians have designs on the country for different reasons. It is not up to US or the Russians to determine what the Afghanis need. It is up to them to decide, and to call them ignorant for not deciding in our favor is the height of arrogance. If they don't like either invasion, they have a right to respond with a one finger salute.
Arrogant for stating the obvious? They could do the pipe line AND contract with Russia for the use of the Port and be in much better shape than dealing in the drug trade.

 

[uneverno]

No, arrogant for wanting to deny others the Right to Self Determination, and especially for claiming we know better.
Didn't we fight a little war with Britain over that very issue?

 

[mantisman51]

Heck yeah I'm Amero-centric. We have 2500 years of republic history. I really think that's a pretty good learning curve. I never said Cuba was stable before the little pig took over, just that he used force, the people didn't choose him. It doesn't matter how educated the tyrant is, if the uneducated and brainwashed masses don't have that education, they are ignorant and don't have a base of knowledge to make a decision. That anyone would try to stop the American style republic from being spread EVERYWHERE is troubling to me. What, the South Americans don't deserve true freedom? Why? The Africans don't deserve true freedom? Why? The American form of republic democracy allows you and me to do what we want and say what we want. That's great for you and me, but why do the citizens of the third world not deserve it? Because their American educated dictator should be respected?

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3119450
Heck yeah I'm Amero-centric. We have 2500 years of republic history. I really think that's a pretty good learning curve. I never said Cuba was stable before the little pig took over, just that he used force, the people didn't choose him. It doesn't matter how educated the tyrant is, if the uneducated and brainwashed masses don't have that education, they are ignorant and don't have a base of knowledge to make a decision. That anyone would try to stop the American style republic from being spread EVERYWHERE is troubling to me. What, the South Americans don't deserve true freedom? Why? The Africans don't deserve true freedom? Why? The American form of republic democracy allows you and me to do what we want and say what we want. That's great for you and me, but why do the citizens of the third world not deserve it? Because their American educated dictator should be respected?
Preach that righteousness to the American Indian

 

[mantisman51]

1) My greatgrandmother was Chiricaua Apache-she was a little girl when her parents followed Geronimo. At 8 y/o she was sent to the prison in Fl and then to Ft Sill, Ok where she met and married my greatgrandfather. We didn't treat Native Americans the way we should have-there is no excuse.
2) Since we made mistakes in the past, should we just give up and never try to make anyones lives better?
3) There were atrocities and illegal land grabs, but it still wasn't as bad as many say it was. If we wanted to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing, there wouldn't be any Native Americans or their descedents (like me) left.
Read the story of the end of General Sheridan's career. He was a hero of the Civil War and ruined his career and reputation advocating for the Indians he had been killing just a few years earlier. Point is, we've made mistakes but have always had good men and women who try to make things better.

 

[zman1]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3119460
1) ...We didn't treat Native Americans the way we should have-there is no excuse.
2) Since we made mistakes in the past, should we just give up and never try to make anyones lives better?
3) There were atrocities and illegal land grabs, but it still wasn't as bad as many say it was.

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3119450
... I really think that's a pretty good learning curve. It doesn't matter how educated the tyrant is, if the uneducated and brainwashed masses don't have that education, they are ignorant and don't have a base of knowledge to make a decision. That anyone would try to stop the American style republic from being spread EVERYWHERE is troubling to me.
I am sure it was very troubling to your ancestors.... I may be wrong though, they may have wanted it. Perhaps too ignorant to know it.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3119450
Heck yeah I'm Amero-centric. We have 2500 years of republic history.
I'll assume "2500" was a typo.
I never said Cuba was stable before the little pig took over, just that he used force, the people didn't choose him.
Then I'm not sure what you're point is. The previous dictator wasn't elected either. The US did keep him in power, however. That's not exactly spreading democracy.
It doesn't matter how educated the tyrant is, if the uneducated and brainwashed masses don't have that education, they are ignorant and don't have a base of knowledge to make a decision.
Careful there - you're getting dangerously close to maligning most of the voting public in this country.

Not only that, but you'd be surprised how much the ignorant masses know.
That anyone would try to stop the American style republic from being spread EVERYWHERE is troubling to me. What, the South Americans don't deserve true freedom? Why? The Africans don't deserve true freedom? Why?
It's troubling to me as well. It's especially so when we're the one's that prevent it from happening. When we're the one's funding said dictators.
You should direct your questions to the State Department and the CIA. I cannot answer them.
What I do know is that the US media decries the democratic elections of Presidents such as Chavez, Morales and Correa as somehow undemocratic because they refuse to be American lapdogs like Uribe is.
The first step toward spreading democracy is to stop supporting tyranny. Each and every one of us has the power to do that. You can start by not buying any more stuff made in China. Support of their economy is defacto support of their political system.

 

[mantisman51]

Oh yes, Hamas and the Venezuelan communist party are the choices of well educated, enlightened people. Let's see, republican democracy started with those rascally Spartans, so I may be uder-estimating the time we've had to study republican values. Funny you align yourself with South American communists and deride the one true democrat leader. The fact that you find the lying, power-grabbing communist leaders as good and the man who wants to free his people from the leftist drug cartels as bad, speaks volumes.

 

[mantisman51]

Just for clarity: Chavez and company said they wouldn't stop freedom of the press. He and the other leftists have shut down, or intimidated into the party line, all of the media and arrest those who openly oppose them. They have taken over any industry or business that doesn't pay the communists their bribes. They have executed hundreds(in Venezuela) of people for crimes against the people; ie the communist govt. You're right. He is a perfect Democrat.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3119479
Oh yes, Hamas and the Venezuelan communist party are the choices of well educated, enlightened people. Let's see, republican democracy started with those rascally Spartans, so I may be uder-estimating the time we've had to study republican values. Funny you align yourself with South American communists and deride the one true democrat leader. The fact that you find the lying, power-grabbing communist leaders as good and the man who wants to free his people from the leftist drug cartels as bad, speaks volumes.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Democracy did not start with the Spartans, it started with the Athenians. Fair enough though, we have had 2500 years to study it, but historically, democracies only last about 250 years.
Venezuela has one of, if not the highest, education level on the continent. They are also one of the most developed of South American countries. Heck - Caracas is almost as cosmoplitan as Bogota.
I didn't say I thought Chaves was good. I said his election was democratic.
By your logic I guess Pinochet, Marcos and Suharto were good guys too, huh?
Uribe and Chaves are both thugs. Our gov't just agrees w/ the former and disagrees w/ the latter. Why? Because Uribe is good for business, and Chaves is not. (But we'll still buy his oil. - Think about that next time you gas up at a Citgo station.)

 

[zman1]

OPEC co-founder 1970's
"Ten years from now, twenty years from now, you will see: oil will bring us ruin… Oil is the Devil's excrement"
Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonzo
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu.../02/03/336434/
The only reason we care, self interest, that's fine. However, lets just not wrap it into some human rights and democracy forum.
China should be a concern then, but we like them. They loan us back the USA wealth we send them in trade deficits.%%

 

[mantisman51]

Zman and uneverno, we are closer in thought than you might think. However, just because a leader uses the democratic process to gain power, like Chavez, doesn't legitimize their tyranny. The reason I use Sparta is because they're senate was made up of all classes, the Athenian republic was an ologarchy, made up of the wealthy class. As far as China AND Vietnam, whether it is Nixon, Bush I or Clinton or Bush II, they are a prime example of money over principles. Nixon was a traitor in regard to China. If you read his memoires on why he sought to modernize China, it was because he thought that the "Eastern phlilosophy" would triumph-with their remorseless brutality, would eventually overtake the west and thought that capitalism would help defer the inevitable. Uribe has brought the right-wing death squads to justice, just as much (if not more so) as he has tried to eradicate the leftist drug cartels-who are supported by the South American communists in Venezuela and Ecuador. Columbia has a free and mostly left-wing press that savages Uribe daily to lend support to the leftist drug cartels.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3119517
Zman and uneverno, we are closer in thought than you might think. However, just because a leader uses the democratic process to gain power, like Chavez, doesn't legitimize their tyranny.
I absolutely, unequivocally agree. Hitler would be a prime example.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3119441
No, arrogant for wanting to deny others the Right to Self Determination, and especially for claiming we know better.
Didn't we fight a little war with Britain over that very issue?
If they are keeping the drugs they produce in their own country and the profits from same are not going to fund terrorist activities I would agree. However that isn't the case.

 

[uneverno]

I understand that.
One could argue the equivalent w/ China, however. While they produce products which are legal (loosely speaking - i.e. assuming they're not tainted) for sale, the profits go to financing anti-US govt's and supporting their own brand of tyranny.
I would posit that America's addiction to cheap crap is a far greater threat to our long term survival than opium or coca derivatives are. We are not running a monumental trade deficit w/ Afghanistan or Colombia, neither do they own a dangerous level of our debt.

 

[vinnyraptor]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3119041
Is that a trick question? Of the 225-30ish nations on earth, we are one of a small handful, if not the only Republic, so I guess the answer is yes.
What we know about what forms of gov't do and don't work is another question altogether. As a country, we've only been around 235 years or so - by historical reconning one of the shortest lived major players thus far. Talk to me after another 750 years. I daresay Rome, Egypt - even Greece - knew a bit more about longevity than we do.
They are sovereign nations. If we don't want to respect their view, perhaps we should annex them.
Your Amero-centric view of WORLD history is a little disturbing. For one thing, most of the leaders of those countries are US or European educated. 2ndly, why their populations live in slums is largely a result of Colonialism. It is not in the least Democratic.

You do know that in its post-Columbian history Cuba has only had 2 or 3 democratic elections (during the 1930's-40's), and those were overthrown, right? It was the US sponsored dictator, Fulgencio Batista, who was overthrown by Castro...
If overthrowing dangerous despots is the goal - start w/ China - before it's too late. Picking on Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan really doesn't accomplish much in the greater scheme of things.
Do not forget Vizzini's Law though: "Never start a land war in Asia."
The Princess Bride
Which bleeding heart liberals would those be - Truman(D) - the only man on earth to have authorized the use of an atomic weapon in wartime? Or the signatories of the Potsdam Conference which (in contravention to the (then) recently signed Cairo Conference and, without Korean representation) divided Korea to begin with?
Yah, I'm naive, and I know nothing of history, apparently.
Next up: "The Dark Ages" or "Why Europe Looks Like it Does Today"
Unless you'd prefer: "A Modern History of the Middle East - Drawing Lines in the Sand"

UNEVERNO IS MY HERO!!!!! WOW, WAY TO BREAK IT DOWN MY FRIEND!

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3119627
I understand that.
One could argue the equivalent w/ China, however. While they produce products which are legal (loosely speaking - i.e. assuming they're not tainted) for sale, the profits go to financing anti-US govt's and supporting their own brand of tyranny.
I would posit that America's addiction to cheap crap is a far greater threat to our long term survival than opium or coca derivatives are. We are not running a monumental trade deficit w/ Afghanistan or Colombia, neither do they own a dangerous level of our debt.
America is addicted to crap period. Trying to keep up with the Joneses is part of the reason for the move to cheap. Getting a new car used a big event, almost like buying a house now days. I can remember several different times when parents friends would talk about getting back out from under car payments or getting a new car and having payments for the first time in years. Now it's getting rare for people to keep a car long enough to pay off the loan.
Remember fix it shops? Even when I was a kid in the 60's people would still get small appliances and stuff repaired. Once the 70's hit things became cheap throw away type stuff.

 

[zman1]

It's called the cheap doctrine....