Metal Reviews

http://news.yahoo.com/official-syria-mo ... itics.html

It is, but I misused it. What I meant is we've all wallowed in the slime long enough.

Which you would assume would lead to international intervention and not simply US...

Seems like there is a pattern here... can't say I blame Iran if they want The Bomb.

I'm not exactly sure what you're implying, but if liberal-democracies want to be champions of human rights then they should step in if a country opts to use chemical weapons on their own people. I fail to see how that would be any different than the abstracted kernel of the German holocaust. If anything, it'll create capital for them.

Because, by what charter does it state that we need to get involved with every pissant country's internal problems?
We need to roll the fuck back and start taking care of ourselves for a change; these little ME adventures cost money and put our own blood at risk of being spilled. We've got our own problems, haven't you heard?
And look at what happened with Egypt and Libya; that really turned out swell, didn't it? Yeah, not so much.

at Obeezy, hope and change, eh? More like more of the same.
I take it you were glad that we invaded Iraq? Remember, WMD's aside (we know he had them, because we sold them to him ), one of the arguments for going in was his inhumane cruelty to his own people.
Enough with this crap already, country's going broke and they are talking about "taking action" in Syria, never mind the fact that they are close allies with Russia.
Amazing that this country's consum-o-bots keep electing the same fucking tools over and over and over again.

Oh and at us being a "liberal democracy"... what a choice we had this election cycle! So unlike the past several... oh wait.

Wake up, we don't have a "choice" the system rotates it's selected meat puppets "vetted" by the controlled media, every four to eight years to grant us the illusion of "We the People!"...
it's a joke.

Amen

I agree with your sentiments against getting involved in yet another Middle East shitfest, but this could put pressure on those American leaders in government to act in accordance with their vision of our idealized "liberal democracy"--I think that is what trapt is speaking about. It would be best if the US and Russia and other big international players on Syria sat down together and acted on this in unison...but I won't have my fingers crossed.

I'm not ascribing any feelings either way to my mention of invading Syria, simply making an observation. I don't think invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do, but it quickly becomes complicated when based on the rubric you would have to basically invade a fifth countries on the globe. And the consequent pillaging and fucking over of the Iraqis is problematic and should be considered in terms of the invasion. If anything, military invasions do generate capital.

Let the towelheads kill each other, I think we've established that already. Also lol @ the idiot for suggesting invading Iraq was the right thing to do, so you concede that military adventurism generates capital, in ends in failure, but it wasn't wrong either fiscally, morally, or in just common sense?

Government force inevitably causes the loss of freedoms for all, if one loses his rights to freedom of speech just because some worthless minority who wants to not be offended gangs up and complains to the government, this is a loss of liberty for all. It sets the precedent that the state can pick and choose what sorts of speech to remove, and this has already been established with Muslim scum in Europe.

When did I say government force? Don't assume.
Ending oppressive regimes is morally right. Sovereignty has no ground to stand on when it doesn't have the support of the people. Invading other nations, though, is always a trouble in terms of logistics. It did create a boon for quite a few capitalists and so it served the purposes of American capitalism.

Anything you propose involves government force and coercion, this isn't an assumption its based on every lame proposal you've ever made to fix every social 'ill' you talk about.



Yeah, that's all fine and dandy except two problems:

Its not true capitalism when the state subsidizes weapons developers, security firms, and other tools of the trade. And secondly, your insane logic regarding what is "morally right", is crashing down in practically every example I can give with regard to us led occupations/aid. Not to mention you have no moral highground to claim what a state should do to begin with.

The government has done next to nothing in terms of the perception of gays in contemporary Western society. Much of the gay activism has been to repeal draconian violations of privacy or to strive for equal treatment. Much of the development of respect towards the gay community has been done through measures by people in civil society, both culturally and through non-governmental institutions. Something which I propose as the right measures to be taken, and something for which I have participated in working towards. No force, no coercion. Communities can work towards bringing about larger changes without the intervention of the state apparatus, especially in terms of progressive measures insofar as the state tends towards conservatism.

This notion you have that capitalism is inherently tied to free markets is about three centuries old. There is a reason that China is emerging as a superpower. It's capitalism minus freedom, having a strong centralized state with which to exert its policies. No need to respond to the demands of the people.

It's two different things to say that Hussein's regime is illegitimate and that Bush's actions should be condoned. The former proposition I accept, the latter not at all. Moral high ground to claim what states should do? Fuck you. It's called five centuries of political theory.

Roughly but accurately put. I'll be willing to bet that when the twin towers fell, those same bastards that would love for us to intervene on their behalf were overcome with glee, and would turn on us like the proverbial snake in the grass just as soon as we were no longer needed for their cause. Fuck the lot of 'em, sez I.

Of course I am under not the slightest bit of illusion that we would ever intercede out of some noble notion of altruism or gallantry.

It has done everything when you have a president that comes out in support of Gay marriage, and the same minority that pushes for federal recognition for it you contradict your own idealistic post. I call that for the bullshit that it is. As for discrimination once again another push from the homosexual community to stifle criticism as 'hate speech'

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-pre ... ate-speech

While the vague crime of "violation of civil rights" may not necessarily entail violation of 1st amendment rights, an individual can still find themselves prosecuted under certain laws for voicing an opinion and then being punished as a result of some lameass hate crime statute. This is force in terms of using their numbers as well as changing laws on the state level.



Its not Capitalism when the state is using taxpayer dollars to subsidize these companies, read my lips fuckwit that's corporatism. Government's don't generate any income with the exception of that which is extracted by theft i,e taxation, it would be different if the government had bake sales but no. China is advancing because they're adapting the same trend we've followed post-ww11, did you know they're also going to have a housing bubble, the state is building entire cities that don't have hardly any inhabitants (ghost cities), and of course all of the public projects in the world don't mean a fucking thing if the state is completely taxing the shit out of you to build them

The claim that Bush's actions shouldn't be condoned, hmm well once again he lied about the WMD'S, sent thousands of troops to die based on faulty intelligence, lied about the link between Al Qaeda and Hussein's government. Five centuries of political theory my ass, going into Iraq for the second time is further proof that our foreign policy is government by a bunch of leftist retards. Its no wonder you support them considering you statist pukes aren't all that different.

there's one point, and only one point on this page I have any interest in

the notion of "democracy"

this idea that we can "choose" who governs our nations, is a lie, in truth we choose a party that has the exact same political idealogies as their supposed opponents, it's all the same shit, reality is we live in totalitarian states where the illusion of freedom is used to prevent uprising of the masses rather then the military force used in countries like Iran

“We find that at present the human race is divided into one wise man, nine knaves, and ninety fools out of every hundred. That is, by an optimistic observer. The nine knaves assemble themselves under the banner of the most knavish among them, and become 'politicians'; the wise man stands out, because he knows himself to be hopelessly outnumbered, and devotes himself to poetry, mathematics, or philosophy; while the ninety fools plod off under the banners of the nine villains, according to fancy, into the labyrinths of chicanery, malice and warfare. It is pleasant to have command, observes Sancho Panza, even over a flock of sheep, and that is why the politicians raise their banners. It is, moreover, the same thing for the sheep whatever the banner. If it is democracy, then the nine knaves will become members of parliament; if fascism, they will become party leaders; if communism, commissars. Nothing will be different, except the name. The fools will be still fools, the knaves still leaders, the results still exploitation. As for the wise man, his lot will be much the same under any ideology. Under democracy he will be encouraged to starve to death in a garret, under fascism he will be put in a concentration camp, under communism he will be liquidated.”
― Sir T.H. White, The Book of Merlyn

how exquisitely expressed the plight of the intelligent is