Menchise

quote: All hail McArthy... Why would anyone want to hail a man who turned America into a police state?

quote: The ideas that liberalism expresses seem so Marxist What's so Marxist about 'free' trade, minimal state intervention in the private sector, privatization of health and education? These are all classical liberal and neo-liberal ideas. That Boortz quote is also neo-liberal. quote: so instead of saying it has nothing to do with it I would say that it is merely a step along the way, just like Socialism - which is in effect what is in most European countries at the moment, not complete socialism, kind of Democratic Socialism Not even close. Many European countries, such as Sweden and Germany, are Social Capitalists (welfare-oriented), but they're gradually moving towards Enterprise Capitalism. Britain is Enterprise Capitalist, just like America (and Australia in a few years). quote: About the USSR being State Capitalism, I can't agree for some reason. I'll explain why it wasn't communist or socialist. Socialism/Communism aims to bring the means of production under the control of the working class. When Stalin became the leader of Russia, that movement was reversed. Instead of empowering the working class, he put the means of production under the control of the state (in other words, him), then he used that industrial power to compete with the industrial power of American capitalists. In other words, he was competing in the global market as a state capitalist. Ever wondered why so many communists (Trotsky et al) disagreed with him and subsequently ended up dead? That's why.

quote: None of these enemies are attacking Iraq, and if they did they'd come under UN scrutiny. I personally can't believe you're JUSTIFYING Saddam Hussein rebuilding the military rather than feeding his people. Look at your argument again, only this time, replace the word "Iraq" with "United States", and the phrase "Saddam Hussein rebuilding the military" with "George Bush building a missile shield", then explain the difference to me. Don't even think about using the attacks on New York and Washington as an example; the proposed "anti-nuke" system is useless against terrorists. I never said that I agreed with Saddam's military buildup, I was just explaining the motivations behind it. quote: As for the CLUES remark, we have PROOF that Saddam Hussein is involved in terrorism, just not absolute confirmation of this INCIDENT. I was referring to the current incident. I should have been more clear about that. Anyway... quote: Check the territorial maps again. What do you mean? quote: Actually, they are QUITE peaceful. I retract my statement that Kuwait is not peaceful. quote: Did you READ that? Iraq DEMANDED that a debt be cancelled! Iraq CLAIMED that Kuwait had exceed OPEC production! *THAT* is why they attacked! Is that sufficient reason to you for attacking ANYONE? No. Thanks for clearing that up. Now to the next issue. quote: What freedom? Also, the US was NOT hostile to the nation before the nation fell hostile to the rest of the world. They made their own bed, they then should lay in it. If the leader cared one iota about the people, he'd deal with the CONSEQUENCES of his mistakes. That's right, certain actions have consequences. The "Oil for Food" issue had nothing to do with consequences of actions. It was all about power and spheres of influence. In fact, the entire situation of American actions in the Middle East revolves around power and spheres of influence. The Middle East is a region that has the richest supply of crude oil in the entire world. The United States consumes more than a quarter of the world's supply, thus it needs to control as much of it as possible in order to ensure high quantities and low prices for its citizens. That is the biggest reason why American troops are stationed there in the first place. The "Oil for Food" programs were an attempt to control the supply of oil from Iraq. [assumption] Instead of exchanging oil with Iraq for the means to grow its own food and rebuild its hospitals [end assumption], they tried to make the country dependant on American food and medical supplies, just as Britain made China dependant on opium to control the supply of goods in that region during the 19th century. Saddam's aggressions in the past were the perfect excuse for this proposal. If he accepted the offer, Iraq would become a puppet state. If he refused, he would be condemned. This latest terrorist attack is quickly becoming an opportunity for America to get rid of Saddam once and for all. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I wonder if they would lift a finger against him if he accepted and continued to follow the "Oil for Food" proposal, even if he was responsible for the attack. Sure, they probably would have bombed a few facilities, maybe even a lot of facilities, but I doubt that they would have overthrown him. [ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote: Warning: The following opinions may, but are not meant to inflame debates. They are as I said opinions and are true to the best of my knowledge. So there!!!! Communism = Evil Communism = Anti-American Communism = Millions murdered by their own government. Communism = The thing we fought against in the cold war Communism = Socialism = Liberalism Hehe. I like debates. Here are my opinions. Communism = One type of Socialism Communism = A society without a state or class divisions Communism has nothing to do with Liberalism In other words, the Soviet Union under Stalin and afterwards was not communist. The Cold War was not about Capitalism versus Socialism or Communism, it was about Enterprise Capitalism versus State Capitalism. quote: And another thing, we actually have a 'Socialist' Prime minister in Tony Blair at the moment, yet he is backing Bush all the way. LOL!!! Blair? LMAO!!! A Socialist??? ROTFLMAO!!! *ahem* Blair is very anti-socialist.

quote: THE GAME IS ABOUT WORKER REVOLUTION AGAINST THEIR CAPITALIST OPPRESSORS = THE COMPANY YOU MINE FOR. What's wrong with that? [ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote: The founding fathers of the USA had the same exact problems, but do you see where we are? The founding fathers of the USA were in a much better position to fight. They owned the land, they had their own sources of food and raw materials, they had access to weapons, and they had the French Navy on their side. quote: If the people of Iraq, got together and actually atempted a Coup, I assure you the US and other countries would somehow get aid to those that were doing it. Discretely of course. I don't see any indication that the people of Iraq are capable of even attempting a coup. Besides, the US attempted to support the Kurdish and Shiite rebellions in Iraq by enforcing the No Fly Zones, and the rebellions still failed. [ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Very good, Watson.

I agree that I get carried away with my arguments at times. It's got nothing to do with hatred of anyone. I am motivated (perhaps too much so) to tell one side of a story because so many are telling the other side as if it's the only one. I clearly don't know the details of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and I concede that part of the argument, which was off-topic anyway. However, I still question America's role in supplying weapons. Anyway, back to the debate. quote: They are worth considering and have been considered. And we have a right as a free nation to deal with whom we please in a manner we see fit. I don't see any evidence of any serious consideration. quote: And since when is American influence murdering millions of Arabs and how? Even Isreal isn't doing that. 'Murdering' is not the exact definition of what American influence is doing. I was just illustrating a point of view with that word. A more accurate definition would be indirectly causing death on a large scale. I only know of a couple of examples, and my details are not exact, but I'll put one on the table for examination. First, there is the issue of economic sanctions against Iraq. This is obviously being done in an attempt to damage Saddam's ability to run the country. There are two problems with this measure: 1. It doesn't work. Despite years of poor conditions, Saddam is still in power. 2. The economic sanctions have crippled Iraq's economy, leaving most of the population in poverty. Hundreds of thousands are starving to death, hence the indirect causing of death. quote: Since when are we condemning the entire people? I just gave you one example. quote: Small groups of people supported by GOVERNMENTS which are the overall, inherent responsibility of ALL the people, many of whom OVERTLY support the activities of both the militants and the governments. I disagree. Overall, the people do not support the activities of the terrorists. As for governments, I think there's a bit of generalization there.

quote: I believe that you, aramike, menchise and all the rest have drawn your battlelines from reading the posts on this thread and the other one. So what if others disagree with you, so what if they believe your opinions are wrong. If you think you're right say your piece and forget about the rest. There is no absolute need to shout it out from the "roof tops". This isn't a battle, it's a debate (I think). Debates consist of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. By the way, I'm gonna stop posting replies in this thread (preferably). If anyone here wants to read about my opinion (can't imagine why ) it's in the other thread.

quote: So, in other words, you want us to set the precedent that, whenever someone wants political ends met, they need only start MURDERING innocent civilians? No. quote: That's NOT an alternative. That's giving into their demands, and ALL that does is shows the world that, whenever they want something political done, they need only start KILLING people. Not necessarily. quote: Furthermore, since WHEN do we let the actions of MURDERERS dictate foreign policy? And, as a nation, we have a RIGHT to sell whatever we want to whomever we want. That's called "freedom" and it shall not be infringed. That's interesting. So you're saying you want the freedom to give one group of people the power to wipe out another group of people? quote: At any rate, you're not suggesting an alternative, your suggesting that the acts of terrorists are JUSTIFIED and that we, the CIVILIZED world, should change to accomodate THEM. No dice. That's NOT what I'm suggesting. The actions of terrorists are definitely not justified. I'm suggesting that the reasons why they're so angry towards America are worth considering. It is true that "the ends do not justify the means", but it's also true that "the means do not disprove the ends". quote: At any rate, the whole POINT is that we do not sacrifice our freedoms to MURDERERS. Them dictating who our allies are is a sacrifice of our nation freedom. And to suggest that we should give in to ANY demands that murderers make is not a good idea. Think: we do it once, what is the NEXT person who wants to achieve a political end going to do? Try diplomacy? First of all, from the point of view of the terrorists and the millions of people who support their ends (not necessarily their means), it is America's interference in the Middle East that is MURDERING millions of Arabs every year. Secondly, are you suggesting that just because a small group of people are committing murder for a political end that we must ignore the millions of other people in the region, who have NEVER committed murder in their entire lives and do not support the act of murder, who also demand the same end? The terrorists are just a tiny minority of people who are angered by some of the actions of America in the region. quote: And your idea of going along with such demands won't escalate the violence, especially after we set the precendence that MURDER can gain you leverage? The actions of a few should not be used to condemn the demands of an entire people, especially when many of those people do not support the actions of the few. quote: The floodgates are already open, chief. They were opened in the 70s at the Olympics in Germany. They were opened in the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut. They were opened with the attack on the USS Cole. They were opened with the attacks on several of our embassies. They've culminated into a MASS MURDER of civilians in New York. Are you suggesting that the so-called floodgates aren't ALREADY opened? OK, I'll rephrase. The military strike would open the gates even further, escalating the flood. quote: So what? I don't see them deploying them in massive attacks on middle eastern countries. They have a RIGHT to defend themselves, and to buy ANY kind of weaponry they want. I do see them deploying tanks and helicopters against Palestinians who have little more than sticks and stones in their hands. Also, since when does defending themselves include the annexation and occupation of territories that do not belong to them, in addition to the forced migration of civilians from within their borders (sound familiar?). quote: Yeah, great idea. Let's just disarm Isreal so that we can have another Hitler-esque slaughter of Jews. That's what many Arabs are calling for, and their leaders don't seem to be holding that ideal back. So, would THAT be enough to make you want to fight them, or should we keep cutting deals? I never said that Israel should be disarmed. I said that they should not be supplied with superior weapons anymore, as a clear message that America no longer supports the Hitler-esque slaughter of Arabs in the region. The fact that America continues to support Israel despite this is one of the biggest reasons why so many people in the Middle East want America to stop interfering: American interference tends to lead to more Arab deaths, not to mention a lot of American deaths at the hands of terrorists. quote: Man I sure made a mistake coming in here reading Menchise's posts. I'm out of here before I say what I want to say and get banned. Huh? [ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Heh. Now I've seen it all: Two theatres of war on the same front (three if you include the rumours of 'unfinished business' in Iraq). Anyway, going off topic for a bit (sort of), I don't expect America to solve the problems of other nations, but I do expect America to stop causing and/or contributing to problems that affect other nations. By the way, I wasn't specifically referring to the Taliban issue.

quote: What is it going to take? 100,000? A MILLION? Is that what you want before we fight back? Is that what you need so your consciousness can rest easy in that we're doing the right thing? How many dead Americans and Arabs will it take before the US administration considers the possibility that its policies toward the Middle East need to be changed? quote: The world has never engaged in a war on terrorism, whereas, we have tried diplomacy I would like to read about some examples where America has directly and seriously negotiated with anyone in the Middle East on the issue of ending the sale of arms to Israel. If you can't find one, well then...there's the alternative you've been asking for. quote: We're NOT leaving the middle east. To do so would be to open the flood gates for ANYONE with a gripe to KILL people in order to achieve political ends. Is that what you want? Politics to be conducted through MURDER? I don't want anything like that. But 'politics through murder' is exactly what the military strike will be. The terrorist attack was one way of saying "Leave us alone". The military response is the same way of saying "No way hosay", among other things. Both ways escalate violence, and I disagree with both ways. To send a military response is to open the flood gates for another response from another organization of terrorists, assuming that the operation succeeds in destroying the current one. quote: If Roosevelt and Churchill were pacifists, Nazism would be the ruling party in Europe and genocide against Jews would have continued. Even if Roosevelt and Churchill were pacifists, they would still have fought the Nazis. As I recall, it was Chamberlain who declared war on Germany. quote: So we let them KILL US to "prove" something to them? No. We stop selling sophisticated weapons to their enemies in order to "prove" something to them. It's no coincidence that Israel is now four times its original, intended size, not including the occupied territories in Palestine. It's also no coincidence that Israel is the only country in the Middle East (at least officially) with nuclear weapons in its arsenal. quote: And I just noticed that, throughout that ENTIRE letter you failed to offer ONE, SINGLE viable solution as an alternative. I just did. [ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Jaguar, if you're referring to me as thought police (note that I said "if"), then I must say that I haven't tried to censor anything. I just said that the joke wasn't funny.

My reply is in the other thread. quote: I hope that some of you found the destruction of four airliners, two office buildings, and all the occupants and rescuers offensive as well. Yes. I did. [ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Anyway, back on topic. I'm sure you can guess what my position is, but I'll say it anyway. If I was in a room with George Walker Bush (I'm assuming that's his middle name since his father's middle name is Herbert Walker) I would say the following: "Mr President, don't do this. Humanity has already lost over 5,000 lives to bloodlust. Don't let that number become 500,000. By initiating this campaign, you will be transforming the second Pearl Harbour into the second Vietnam War. You will be fighting a people who care less about their own lives than they do about your death. Bin Ladin is regarded as a hero by millions of people, many of which would be happy to die aboard a plane heading straight for you. Your campaign, if successful, will make him into a martyr of millions, and the destruction of his organization will inspire the building of another. The war on terrorism is a war that will never end as long as terrorists have a cause to fight for. You may be successful in the operation you plan to implement, but you will never win by military force. Nobody will win, unless you believe in the existence of a devil. The cause of this conflict is not religion, not even a twisted interpretation of it. Religion is just the coincidental source of unity which has been adopted by the people in their own campaign. They want non-interference from America in the affairs of the Middle East, including an end to the selling of arms to Israel. As long as that interference continues, the war will never end, and history has proven that America can't win a war that doesn't end, regardless of technology. Gandhi once said, 'An eye for an eye only makes the world go blind'. He was a peaceful man, yet he succeeded in his campaign to free India from the British Empire. The terrorists in the Middle East regard you as their oppressor. The moment you prove to them that you are not is the moment that the war will end. Killing their families will prove otherwise. Think about it."

Here's my opinion: It's not funny.

That's odd. According to my web browser, you're still an Ensign.

Hmm...doesn't look good for Monotype Corsiva. I checked several OS installations in my house as well. Win 98: Yes WinNT4.0: Yes WinNT4.0: Yes WinNT4.0: No Win95: No Linux-Mandrake 8.0: No I first encountered the font on a computer at the University I attend. MacOS 8.6: Yes Hmm...

Hey guys, I need a few moments of your time for a little survey thingo. I'm thinking about writing my game review site with a font called Monotype Corsiva (among others) in an attempt to present an "archive paper" metaphor. Before I can do that, I need to know if Monotype Corsiva is a common font (ie installed on most computers). So, could you please take a look at the Fonts directory on your computer and see if you have it? I would need to know the OS you're using and whether you have it or not.

O...M...G!

Ep5, when's the next issue of the CVNN? BTW, here is an announcement. Over the past few days, I've been building a new Insurgent base in AW. It's not a secret base, so there's no need to request coordinates. Unfortunately, it's far from complete, so I won't announce it's location at this time, but I can tell you that it's gonna rock. It's nowhere near as big as the Orion outpost, but the security is very tight, including an animated aerial patrol around the entry hub, and some HUGE turrets mounted on the main building. Lemmings should steer clear.

Too predictable.

Okay Ep5. Since you obviously want the Directory to be at the central square, could you at least let me put it in so that I can make changes to it when necessary? [ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote: We had no other choice, since *someone* in Galcom High Command has yet AGAIN overseen the design of toilets on any and all Galcom assets... well, lets just leave it that those bags do have good use after our troops are finished using them; we sell them as Protein packs to the insurgents via the black market. Word has it they like it when its used as filling for their "Fig Newtons" and "BigOne" burgers Of course we do. It's more appetizing than most fast food out there. You don't want to imagine what Galcom puts in their own burgers. (Hint: In the 31st century, the cows are genetically engineered to breed faster).