- Revora Forums
- → narboza22's Content
There have been 269 items by narboza22 (Search limited from 13-November 18)
Reagan is the most asshole president USA has ever had.. maybe beaten by Bush dad and son. Funded Iraq against Iran at the same time it sold weapons to Iran. They trained some of these franksteins like Saddam and Bin Laden. Not to mention that he barely knew any country in the globe. The dumbass confused Brazil with Bolivia, when talking to the brazilian president in a meeting in Brasilia. Is he so dumb to not even know where is he going to?
Honestly, I don't know which was the best president USA ever had, but I am sure it wasn't Ronald Reagan.
Huh, funny how most Americans would disagree with you there.
Look at it this way, if you hit someone in public, you can go to jail for assault or battery or whatever, so why on earth should it be ok for you to hit a child? Its also illegal for other adults to hit your child(ie. no corporal punishment in schools), so again, why should it be ok for you to hit your kid? I mean, if I had a kid, or hell, even my little brother for example, and I saw someone hit him, I would flip out.
I was reading something about this in a magazine(at the dentist, no idea what magazine it was) recently and it talked about parenting with a "carrot and stick" method. IMO, it should be a "carrot or no carrot" method. Good behavior should be rewarded, and bad behavior should be punished by sanctions, for lack of a better word, not by physical force.
What's dumb is that the rest of the world seems to think that dumbing a couple million tons of fuel oil into the country is actually going to help the people in the DPRK. All that does is let Kim maintain his rule a little while longer.
And even if/when Kim loses power, what happens then? Millions of NK refugees would just flee the country into SK or China. That's bad for all three countries.
Well bring the psychiatrists and the ban-sticks over this way first. Even though his sick ideologies may not appeal to you, I'dRight there, Adolf!
I wish I was dictator, I'd change the world so much you can't imagine, even If I kill millions of people, I'd die knowing I made a change...
Where is the board rule that allows us to ban people because of sick ideologies when you need it the most?
Honestly, I never insulted people personally on this board before, but I bet the court psychiatrist will/would have his delight in finding out what went wrong in your childhood...
probablydefinitely go much further. I'd have no problem with systematically wipe out seemingly random countries with malicious intent for a higher cause.
Edit: I notice how America doesn't give a fuck about any white, Christian countries having nuclear capabilities
Mostly because the white Christian countries don't have leaders who say they want to wipe other countries off the map.
But back on topic, why do all of you seize this opportunity to make another stab at Bush? He has consistently advocated for a peaceful solution to the stand off with Iran, and now that there is an NIE out that offers a way to defuse the situation, you guys just see it as Bush screwing up again. I see it as the US making a last ditch attempt to salvage negotiations after what Iran said that all the talks were irrelevant at the last meeting: http://www.iht.com/a...africa/iran.php
I dont see why everyone is bitching about Chavez and Putin. You forget that both Russia and Venezuala are democracies.
Chavez just lost a vote (yes, a vote where the people are free to decide their own future), and Putin just won a vote. Chavez's loss proves that Venezuala is still a democracy...if Chavez was really a dictator, would he allow a referendum on the country's course of action? A referendum that was obvously fair enough so that the government could LOSE?
In the Russian election, pro-Putin parties gained 80% support, while anti-Putin parties gained only 20% support.
Im sure its HIGHLY realistic to assume that this 60% gap was caused only by meddling and censorship by the government....</sarcasm>
Face it people....Putin and Chavez are not only popular because they "deceive" the majority of the population, its because they do what the majority of the population wants done....I'm pretty sure doing what the people wants is called a democracy and not a dictatorship...
Putin and the United Russia Party won an election that was plagued by dirty tactics and messed up voting, a UR spokesman even admitted that. The fact that Putin is popular does not make him a democratic leader. Lots of people liked Hitler and even more people loved Mao, so lets get realistic. Democracy is based on the system, not the leader.
Chavez lost because of the system that lets people protect their freedoms. That is democracy. The people said no to his undemocratic reforms.
Saying that democracy is simply "doing what the people want" is incredibly simply minded. Robert Dahl listed 7 things as a definition of democracy:
-Elected Officials in power
-Free and Fair elections
-Universal right to run for office
-Freedom of expression
-Alternative sources of information
If you fit all of that, then you are a true democracy, but if you just "do what the people want," you are democratic. Countless dictators, monarchs, and emperors would fit your definition of democracy.
No, democracy is doing what the US government wants.
Do you realize how stupid that sounds? By your standard, there must only be about 5 democracies in the world. I'm sure glad that's not true.
Sometimes some sacrifices must be made in the name of justice, peace and freedom. But he is strong and just who has nothing more to lose.
Cut them off from all resources. They might cut off their oil, but I doubt they can survive in total isolation. Once they see they have nothing we want, they might be easier to persuade in an attempt to seek bargain material. I believe war is not an option, but there are plenty more methods of diplomacy.
The US and Europe could completely ignore the Saudis for the rest of eternity and they would be just fine, until the oil runs out. That is because regardless of western moral values, China would jump at any opportunity to be the only guy buying oil from the Kingdom. They aren't going to cut off relations over a silly little thing like human rights abuses.
The basis behind American policy ever since WWII has been hypocrisy....
The United States government doesn't give a shit about human rights.
The problem is that we have no options.
So what if the general population wants the west to take action on Saud Arabia's brutal Islamic law? The left-wing parties we have seem to disagree with anything confrontational, and the right-wing parties only confront these brutalities if it suits their own selfish interests.
I am growing steadily more dissatisfied with the way the world is being run....
What general population wants to take action on the Saudis? Sure people think its terrible what's happening to that woman and her lawyer, and the countless other similar cases, but if you gave the average person the choice between 1) standing up for their ideals and doing something to change the Saudi's ways, which would destroy the flow of oil to the west and directly effective that average person's life in a negative way, or 2) that average person could simply stand by and watch it happen, while thinking its terrible, but not have their lives negatively effected, the average person would choose #2 because people look out for themselves first and foremost.
Of course, someone could also decide to intervene, but who is going to do that? Everything the US does these days is condemned as imperialist expansion or some similar bullshit. Or maybe Europe like you mentioned, but the chances of them getting their act together long enough to accomplish anything is next to nothing. China and Russia both rival Saudi Arabia in terms of human rights abuses, so they sure as hell aren't going to involved.
In all honesty, the majority of people who complain about how the US turns a blind eye to this would instantly condemn any actions the US took to stop it. It wouldn't even have to be military intervention, just something that would cause a hiccup in the flow of oil.
And even in a perfect world where Europe was gung ho enough to leave their continent and the US was ready to abandon the Saudis, what would they do? Put sanctions on Saudi Arabia? That would hurt the rest of the world just as much as it would hurt the Saudis. Invade? That would only infinitely multiply the amount of extremist Muslims who have it out for us infidels. Maybe we would just hold a press conference and explain that how our Judeo-Christian values make us morally opposed to such actions and that we would really appreciate it if the Saudis would stop raping and whipping people. In which case the Saudis would say that they will consider the matter and review the case, which would simply take long enough for this story to be forgotten by the media.
You say that we live in a modern society where this should not be accepted. Well, the Middle East is not a modern society, and the same "not understanding the culture" that caused all of the problems in Iraq applies here. Yes this seems completely illogical and barbaric to us, but so does suicide bombing markets full of our own people.
Do you even know? I'm sure the both are of you are too young to remember. I was in Russia is 1990 after the fall of communism. Thier shelves were bare, we were not even allowed to cash in more than $25 worth of US currency to rubles. Because of it's buying power. We were not allowed to buy electronics over there because it was so dirt cheap because of government set prices. It was a freaking economical mess.
You have a very interesting perspective on life if you think that being under Soviet rule was a good thing. ~Narboza
I was basing my statement on what my dad told me, who did business in Moscow while it was still the Soviet capital. From what he described, life would be hard pressed to get crappier than how it was in the USSR.
edited to fix quote
And yes, America was fighting communism worldwide. Why? It wasn't communism that endangered America. It was the possibility the USSR might throw nukes its way. That was nothing to do with political ideology, just pure morbid fear.
That makes absolutely no sense. How would hindering Soviet expansion ease tensions between the USSR and US and make a nuclear exchange less likely? The US fought communism because of the Truman Doctrine. That was a policy based purely on political and economic reasons.
How can you even think of justifyng Amerca's support for these tyrants because "communism was the greater evil".
Under the soviet occupation women and the lower class actually had accessible health care and education. How can you possibly think that the shit the Taliban put Afghanistan through was a lesser evel than communism. The americans knew this in the 1980's as well as I do now.
The american support of the Mujahideen in afghanistan is a perfect example of irresponsible intervention.
You have a very interesting perspective on life if you think that being under Soviet rule was a good thing. But that's beside the point. From the Western perspective, communism was the enemy, and US policy was to fight it whenever possible. Again, you're missing the bigger picture. It was not just fighting communism in Afghanistan, it was fighting communism all over the world.