I'm speechless, I will write more when I have collected myself

That's...what?! Really?  .....off to read the news.

It isn't really a surprise, although I did continue to hope it wouldn't happen. 

Wow.  I really admired her for standing up for what she thought was right even in the face of death threats. 

the neocons' pal musharraf is a real shifty character, it sounds like he probably had a hand in this. he cowtows to a lot of islamic extremist elements in the pakistani government while maintaining ties to right-wing elements in the west. the latter purport to be at war with the former, and yet seem to use similar methods and seek similar ends. ME regional chaos benefits the right wing in the US, but also the local religious fanatics who preach an ideology that feeds on inequality and popular discontent.

and the last thing the current US administration needs is a candidate preaching peace in the middle of the ME, right when they've rendered the whole region up for grabs and seem to be trying to plunge the whole region into turmoil so they can snatch control of the resources and get strategic leverage there. i have a funny feeling all sorts of western intelligence connections will start turning up with regard to this.

just like vietnam, when the war turned south suddenly all these liberal icons started dropping left and right, all by means of small political factions or lone gunmen with extensive, but "coincidental," connections to western intelligence. im so sick of these bastards.

the scariest thing is when hinky political assassinations start turning up in countries with nuclear weapons and stable delivery systems. depending on what happens now this could have real bad consequences.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/tearyeyed.gif

So much violence in Pakistan.  Bhutto's own father was hanged and two of her brothers were shot as well.  We saw the massive death from the bombings when Bhutto returned to Pakistan.  

I might have expected an attempt on Benazir, but I didn't.  This news was still a shock.

The ramifications of this butchery will last for months, years perhaps.  They might be gunning for that S.O.B. Musharraf, even if he wasn't involved (and if he wasn't involved he's still an S.O.B.)

The assassin shot her through the neck and chest before blowing himself up and injuring 20 others.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7181200,00.html

It isn't really a surprise, although I did continue to hope it wouldn't happen. 


I pretty much had the same feelings. It's just a shock to wake up and see that Musharraf finally got his way (oh yes, I firmly believe he had a hand in this). My god.

I don't mean to sound insensitive, but not everybody hailed Bhutto as a great democrat. Her own niece was an active critic against her, and many people thought she was nothing but an opportunist who wanted to take power.

I don't know if I would agree with those people, I really don't know the political stakes in Pakistan well enough. It's certain that she had been accused of corruption with plenty of diverse documents to back it up. Here we're talking about laundering money from the Pakistani people into personal accounts...

  OMG...

  I had a feeling...

I don't mean to sound insensitive, but not everybody hailed Bhutto as a great democrat. Her own niece was an active critic against her, and many people thought she was nothing but an opportunist who wanted to take power.





Not everyone liked Ghandi, Lincoln, the Kennedys, King, Allende, etc etc.  Not all of them were doing the right thing all the time, but in many quarters they were seen as the best hope for the times they were in.

It isn't really a surprise, although I did continue to hope it wouldn't happen. 
:(Me too.I thought the nation needed her persoanally.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/tearyeyed.gif

So much violence in Pakistan.  Bhutto's own father was hanged and two of her brothers were shot as well.  We saw the massive death from the bombings when Bhutto returned to Pakistan.  

I might have expected an attempt on Benazir, but I didn't.  This news was still a shock.

The ramifications of this butchery will last for months, years perhaps.  They might be gunning for that S.O.B. Musharraf, even if he wasn't involved (and if he wasn't involved he's still an S.O.B.)

The assassin shot her through the neck and chest before blowing himself up and injuring 20 others.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7181200,00.html
???So I guess he brought himself to justice???

I know this was going to happen.  She pose to much of a threat.  The threat of the popular vote.  She was quite an amazing woman.  I have heard Sharrif is going to not only avenge her murder but will take her place politically.  I'll give it a month, someone will bump of Musharraf.

I think Pakistan is in a race with Burma and Iraq to see who can descend into total chaos first.

I'm 50/50 on wether Musharef was involved, regardless of that, he is indeed a shady character. At this moment in time, much as it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, I have to hope Musharef can crack down and restore some semblance of order, because the last thing the world needs is a nuclear ready Pakistan without any sort of viable leadership, ready to blow southern Asia in to the middle ages.

???So I guess he brought himself to justice???

Justice?  No.


Not everyone liked Ghandi, Lincoln, the Kennedys, King, Allende, etc etc.  Not all of them were doing the right thing all the time, but in many quarters they were seen as the best hope for the times they were in.


I had mixed feelings on Benazir Bhutto and the Bhutto family, but she was a lot better than the alternatives.  I've learned one thing about political leaders--seek fault and ye shall find fault.  We expect beloved leaders to be saints, then when they're not we dismiss them as frauds.  As seedy as the Kennedy family is, I would much rather have had Jack and Bobby than Johnson and Nixon.

???So I guess he brought himself to justice???


Why hasn't a better incentive NOT to suicide bomb been developed???

As we know, some 'radicals' believe they will be greeted by the virgins, others were promised their families will be given support and $$$ after they do it, and depending who blew himself in this case for whatever reason.... it had been brought up by many in the past-why not ,as a preventative measure, vow to KILL everyone in any suicide bombers family if they choose to risk it all for a foolish stunt???

It sounds Utopian that every family will bring their children up from that point on NOT TO EVER PLAY WITH BOMBS , but it may cut down on every other Yahoo, from doing themselves and innocents in the area.(in this case 20 others died).

Got anything better than trying this for a generation?
If it gets worse, try another idea, but if some think they should die for virgins, will they die for the sake of the whole family?

Not sure of the stats when 3rd world countries do the justice to thieves by cutting off their body parts for the offense, but, do the criminals ever change in THEIR thinking? Then again I have heard of people who went to those countries and would see MANY people missing MANY limbs..so some apparently didn't get the lesson and probably there is a big market for prothetics..but why stay and take the oppression if that's what is their excuse..but if they're stupid and want to pay that price...let the future suicide bombers learn they are responsible what happens to their family-I would've had a few members kicking my butt if I tried anything stupid and learned to keep it together.


I'd keep a really close eye on my kids for sure..and rather have them have make kids instead of bombs at 16....( :D reference to other thread)

It seems that Pakistan is going through similar times when Ghandi was alive. I hope there's a more peaceful Pakistan.

I didn't know much about this person...until I heard the story on the news this morning. :-\\



It seems that Pakistan is going through similar times when Ghandi was alive. I hope there's a more peaceful Pakistan.

All i can say is I hope so too.

I'd keep a really close eye on my kids for sure..and rather have them have make kids instead of bombs at 16....( :D reference to other thread)


Seriously dude, there is help for your problems/obsessions. I'm sure we can even get you links for it.

In other, MORE IMPORTANT news, Al Qaeda is claiming responsibility for killing her. :P

Seriously dude, there is help for your problems/obsessions. I'm sure we can even get you links for it.

In other, MORE IMPORTANT news, Al Qaeda is claiming responsibility for killing her. :P


Uh, not quite a PROBLEM...I guess when someone comes along that has some idea to stop unwanted behavior, they come off having a problem..

I can name a veteran radio talk show host in Northeast  Ohio whose views I have followed and enjoyed about raising his kids, among things, making sure they work hard,and learn(girl and boy), how to change a tire,do minor car repair, do yard work and fend for themselves without whining..and is a fine example of what people need to pass on to the future generations and NOT leave room for 'accidents' .   

Uh, not quite a PROBLEM...I guess when someone comes along that has some idea to stop unwanted behavior, they come off having a problem..

I can name a veteran radio talk show host in Northeast  Ohio whose views I have followed and enjoyed about raising his kids, among things, making sure they work hard,and learn(girl and boy), how to change a tire,do minor car repair, do yard work and fend for themselves without whining..and is a fine example of what people need to pass on to the future generations and NOT leave room for 'accidents' .     


It's a problem when you bring it up in threads that have NOTHING to do with what you're talking about.

Build a bridge and get over it, man.

It's a problem when you bring it up in threads that have NOTHING to do with what you're talking about.

Build a bridge and get over it, man.


I addressed the issue that 'suicide bombers' should be stopped...in reference to the killing in Pakistan..then POINTED OUT a reference to ANOTHER thread, yes...but it had context up to there.. I intended for others to address the idea of the end to the problem of nutjob extremists and smiled to make light of the Jaime story here in America ...but it didn't come off that way.....

I'm aware...just not uptight 

Not only am I saddened by this, I'm also afraid. I wonder what the ramifications of this will be-and there WILL be ramifications. I have a feeling that Musharraf is going to meet the same fate as Bhutto very soon. It could very well be the beginning of WWIII. I TRULY hope I am wrong.



Cat

Last I just heard was , she died from head trauma not being shot in the head or neck

Last I just heard was , she died from head trauma not being shot in the head or neck


You forgot about the reports of her being hit by shrapnel.

You forgot about the reports of her being hit by shrapnel.


well now, not even shrapnel,now it was hitting her head on her SUV..the story has unfolded referring to the original speculation it was gun shots..just clearing it up to that point...

NOW, as with any story from that way,...predictions are from this incident that gas prices will go up to $4.00!

I think if a sheik sneezes, the price goes up!

First it is the conversion from summer to winter gas, then it was there was an earthquake, then the turmoil of war, then a drop in the use of oil...WHEN will we come up with the words to the EAST that we are using OUR OWN resources to get them to worry about losing our market?
Politicians, anything?

Yes, indeed...the story has unfolded referring to the original speculation it was gun shots..just clearing it up to that point...

NOW, as with any story from that way,...predictions are from this incident that gas prices will go up to $4.00!

I think if a sheik sneezes, the price goes up!

First it is the conversion from summer to winter gas, then it was there was an earthquake, then the turmoil of war, then a drop in the use of oil...WHEN will we come up with the words to the EAST that we are using OUR OWN resources to get them to worry about losing our market?
Politicians, anything?



HUH?    ??? ??? ??? ???




Cat

HUH?    ??? ??? ??? ???

Cat


  It's gotta be graveyard humor...

HUH?    ??? ??? ??? ???




Cat


ditto huh    ???

Not only am I saddened by this, I'm also afraid. I wonder what the ramifications of this will be-and there WILL be ramifications. I have a feeling that Musharraf is going to meet the same fate as Bhutto very soon. It could very well be the beginning of WWIII. I TRULY hope I am wrong.



Cat


  Many of her supporters are extremely anti-west, but she was not anti-west herself.  She was a moderating force.  I wish she'd taken better care of herself...

  If this was her opponents' only objective Musharraf will remain in power.  No danger of any democracy now.  Musharraf can continue without hindrance.  Whew... 

  If not, anarchy in a nuclear nation...

  Many of her supporters are extremely anti-west, but she was not anti-west herself.  She was a moderating force.  I wish she'd taken better care of herself...

  If this was her opponents' only objective Musharraf will remain in power.  No danger of any democracy now.  Musharraf can continue without hindrance.  Whew... 

  If not, anarchy in a nuclear nation...



That is what I am afraid of.



Cat

  Many of her supporters are extremely anti-west, but she was not anti-west herself.  She was a moderating force.  I wish she'd taken better care of herself...




I don't think that there was anything she could have done to prevent this once they decided that they wanted to get her. The only option she had was to keep her mouth shut and do what they told her, and she wouldn't do that. She was well aware of the possibility of not living through it, but she pressed on.

HUH?    ??? ??? ??? ???




Cat


It couldn't be me as I wrote regarding the news reporting how gas prices may rise from this because of the unrest....so I expounded how they rise anytime something goes on there..

geez how did 2  miss the gist.....I am concerned about that effect...the politicians will fight for the control issues...that's all I'm saying... 

(f)Huckabee says this means it's time to tighten up our borders and keep out all those pesky Pakistanis!

Why don't you go back to Mud Holler and make some more babies with you first cousins?
8-P

It sounds like Huckabee and I agree on something then.  This is a first.

In other, MORE IMPORTANT news, Al Qaeda is claiming responsibility for killing her.

And yet I just read here: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22985260-23109,00.html that Al-Qaeda has denied it and is blaming the Government. Either way it plays into their hands. To the anti-West hardliners, a democratic Pakistan would be a US puppet state.

And yet I just read here: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22985260-23109,00.html that Al-Qaeda has denied it and is blaming the Government. Either way it plays into their hands. To the anti-West hardliners, a democratic Pakistan would be a US puppet state.


Doesn't surprise me. They can't even agree on how she died, let alone who started it.

Let's see.....she either bumped her head, got shot in the neck, or got hit by shrapnel. Take your pick.

I'm not sure what is worse, Mushareff, or naming Bhuttos 19 year old son head of the party, with his father acting in his stead until he finishes school. 

I'm not sure what is worse, Mushareff, or naming Bhuttos 19 year old son head of the party, with his father acting in his stead until he finishes school. 


Why am I mentally screaming he' just a kid?  What does he know about politics, let alone life.  As for Mushariff, I don't think he's going to make it out of this. . . dare I say alive.  I think Sharif is probably in the best position politically for the job.

Why am I mentally screaming he' just a kid?  What does he know about politics, let alone life. 



That is the point.  His father, and whoever is backing him, is manipulating this situation.  He is setting his kid up as a figurehead and will  retain control.  Dad isn't  a stellar character in any way, I wouldn't doubt that there was more than one reason for his denial of an autopsy.  There will be a power struggle between Sharif and Zadari(the husband in question).  One of them may be joining Benazir at some point in the not to distant future.

That is the point.  His father, and whoever is backing him, is manipulating this situation.  He is setting his kid up as a figurehead and will  retain control.  Dad isn't  a stellar character in any way, I wouldn't doubt that there was more than one reason for his denial of an autopsy.  There will be a power struggle between Sharif and Zadari(the husband in question).  One of them may be joining Benazir at some point in the not to distant future.


So how many conspiracy theories are we up to? 

So how many conspiracy theories are we up to? 
you really put it past a military dictator to set up something like this? doesn't mean he did, but it's sure as hell plausible.

you really put it past a military dictator to set up something like this? doesn't mean he did, but it's sure as hell plausible.


But he seemed so nice when he did the Daily Show with John Stewart.  You mean he was faking being charming??? >:(

So how many conspiracy theories are we up to? 


"There are eight million stories in the Naked City".....

But he seemed so nice when he did the Daily Show with John Stewart.  You mean he was faking being charming??? >:(


Well, of course, he would seem charming compared to Bush.  That's not saying much though.  The guy's even more of a powermonger than Bush is.

Basically, being a corrupt jackass is a prerequisite for running Pakistan.  A 19 year old running things would be somewhat appropriate given the chaos of that country.

In short, the British never should have given this part of India its independence.  Both Pakistan and Bangladesh were better off with European rule, although what we now know of as India is actually doing ok.  It would appear that the Hindus are much better at self-rule than the Muslims are.

Well, of course, he would seem charming compared to Bush.  That's not saying much though.  The guy's even more of a powermonger than Bush is.

Basically, being a corrupt jackass is a prerequisite for running Pakistan.  A 19 year old running things would be somewhat appropriate given the chaos of that country.

In short, the British never should have given this part of India its independence.  Both Pakistan and Bangladesh were better off with European rule, although what we now know of as India is actually doing ok.  It would appear that the Hindus are much better at self-rule than the Muslims are.


Nope.  The British should have never gone in in the first place.  Too late for all that, but one of the reasons the whole region  is in the shape it is in is because of the attitude the British came in with, and the attitude towards the population while in control.

Nope.  The British should have never gone in in the first place.  Too late for all that, but one of the reasons the whole region  is in the shape it is in is because of the attitude the British came in with, and the attitude towards the population while in control.


True...  I agree that the colonial period never should have happened, but once you set something like that in motion, you can't just leave, or it gets even worse.

True...  I agree that the colonial period never should have happened, but once you set something like that in motion, you can't just leave, or it gets even worse.





In short, the British never should have given this part of India its independence.  Both Pakistan and Bangladesh were better off with European rule, although what we now know of as India is actually doing ok.



You may think that both Pakistan and Bangladesh were better off under the Europeans, but I wonder what the people of those countries would say. Even with the way things are now at least they don't have to step in the gutter to allow a white person to pass by, and that, my friend, sometimes makes the fight worth while.

You may think that both Pakistan and Bangladesh were better off under the Europeans, but I wonder what the people of those countries would say. Even with the way things are now at least they don't have to step in the gutter to allow a white person to pass by, and that, my friend, sometimes makes the fight worth while.


Well, I'd rather take a step in the gutter than one in the grave.  If I had to bow to some government or race to keep my family alive, as opposed to "freedom" in an anarchic state (like Pakistan currently is dissolving into), then I'd do it.  There's a difference between pride and ignorance, and Pakistan crossed that line when they took what freedom they gained from ousting the British and squandered it through cultural conflict.

If America was in the kind of shape that Pakistan is currently in, I would think a large portion of Americans would openly welcome a culture like the British to rule things in a stable way.  Order is more important than freedom within anarchy or situations close to it.

Order holds people accountable for crimes and atrocities committed rather than letting them run rampant in an anarchy where retaliatory violence (vigilantism) is the only sense of justice.  There's a reason why the police don't normally gun down those accused of murder in this country.  Granted, there are some notable exceptions to this, but we're still far better off than Pakistan because of order (aside from our vastly higher standard of living).

As a final note, our prosperity also has to do with our comparatively much higher state of order, because the more people have to lose, the more likely they will follow laws.  In Pakistan, there is such a large underclass that maintaining order is a nightmare even for oppressive leaders like Musharraf.  It helps to explain why large portions of that country are run by extremists.

Well, I'd rather take a step in the gutter than one in the grave.  If I had to bow to some government or race to keep my family alive, as opposed to "freedom" in an anarchic state (like Pakistan currently is dissolving into), then I'd do it.  There's a difference between pride and ignorance, and Pakistan crossed that line when they took what freedom they gained from ousting the British and squandered it through cultural conflict.



Well fortunately for the people of the world today there are people who did refuse to take that step.  People like...Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandi, Daniel O'Connell, Thomas a Beckett, Ho Chi Minh,  I don't think I could do it, but I cannot in any way diminish them for the "last full measure of devotion."  I wouldn't call it pride, and I definitely wouldn't categorize it as ignorance. 

Well fortunately for the people of the world today there are people who did refuse to take that step.  People like...Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandi, Daniel O'Connell, Thomas a Beckett, Ho Chi Minh,  I don't think I could do it, but I cannot in anyway diminish them for the "last full measure of devotion."  I wouldn't call it pride, and I definitely wouldn't categorize it as ignorance. 


http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/happy/applause.gif



Cat

"There are eight million stories in the Naked City".....


Everyone has a conspiracy theory. I mean opinion.

Well, of course, he would seem charming compared to Bush.  That's not saying much though.  The guy's even more of a powermonger than Bush is.

Basically, being a corrupt jackass is a prerequisite for running Pakistan.  A 19 year old running things would be somewhat appropriate given the chaos of that country.

In short, the British never should have given this part of India its independence.  Both Pakistan and Bangladesh were better off with European rule, although what we now know of as India is actually doing ok.  It would appear that the Hindus are much better at self-rule than the Muslims are.


Bhutto was run out of the country before on charges of corruption.

I don't think the British can take it back now.  Yes, they probably would be better off.  Both India and Pakistan have nukes aimed for each other.

Everyone has a conspiracy theory. I mean opinion.


Opinions are like a$$hole$.  Everyone has one and the all stink.  ;D

Well fortunately for the people of the world today there are people who did refuse to take that step.  People like...Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandi, Daniel O'Connell, Thomas a Beckett, Ho Chi Minh,  I don't think I could do it, but I cannot in any way diminish them for the "last full measure of devotion."  I wouldn't call it pride, and I definitely wouldn't categorize it as ignorance. 


I wouldn't exactly put MLK and Ho Chi Minh in the same category.  One helped push forward civil rights in America, and the other helped establish an even more oppressive state than the one that the French established in Vietnam.

Also, while I respect what Gandhi did, it's pretty obvious that his people didn't follow his path for very long after his death.  They threw away what they gained from his influence by bickering amongst each other over matters of race and religion.  So, even though the British weren't exactly benevolent rulers of India, they did still manage to do a better job of ruling than their successors did in what would become Pakistan.

I'm not sure what is worse, Mushareff, or naming Bhuttos 19 year old son head of the party, with his father acting in his stead until he finishes school. 

If I was that boy I would be on the redeye to London just about now!
:o


Opinions are like a$$hole$.  Everyone has one and the all stink.   ;D

I'll have to take your word for it.  I don't have the frame of reference.

(Sorry, nothing personal, just something I'm compelled to say whenver anyone draws the analogy.)
:-\\


I wouldn't exactly put MLK and Ho Chi Minh in the same category.  One helped push forward civil rights in America, and the other helped establish an even more oppressive state than the one that the French established in Vietnam.


They both have three syllables as long as you use the former's acronym.
:D

When I was a kid my friend had an old cat named Ho Chi.  His parents named the cat Ho Chi and him Kyle.  Fortunately, it wasn't the other way around.
Ho's real name was Nguyen Ai Quoc.  He changed his name to Ho Chi Minh, which means Enlightend Will--Spirit--Light.  In Vietnamese nomenclature "Ho" means "Enlightened Will."
And I dunno, the French were pretty brutal.  Less popular "French postcards" are the ones depicting mutilated Viet Minh.  Imperialism is soooo nast that were you in some downtrodden colony, you'd throw your support to the man and the party that could get the empire off your back--even if they seemed kind of violent and creepy themselves.
::)

Opinions are like a$$hole$.  Everyone has one and the all stink.  ;D


I walked right into that one.http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/1662/doh4jw.gif

Doesn't surprise me. They can't even agree on how she died, let alone who started it.

Let's see.....she either bumped her head, got shot in the neck, or got hit by shrapnel. Take your pick.


Musharrif blew his cover with the "bumped her head" scam.  I know the distinction between "got killed" and "killed herself by accident" is important to certain voting blocs within the Religion of Peace, but that one's so transparently false it's not even funny.  I don't even think most Muslims in Pakistan are falling for that one.

And that goes double now that the footage from some guy with a cellphone has leaked to BBC Channel 4 (what, in an age of ubiquitous wireless telephony, you think the Pulitzer-worthy - but ambiguous - photos from that Getty Images dude are gonna be the only images of a political rally gone awry?)

If Pakistan falls to the fundamentalists and this crap goes nuclear (for what little it's worth, I'm still betting it won't), that video's gonna be the Zapruder film of the 21st century.  Whoever wins the "elections" in a few months, I hope the guy who took it is out of the country by now. 

It presents an interesting catch-22 for the modern age.  Pop quiz:  You're present at a place where history's just been made in a rather unpleasant fashion.  Do you take your pictures and release them immediately?  (you risk being shot/disappeared, or maybe you'll get lucky and the Official Version will be written so as to take your video into account?)  Do you wait a few days for the Official Version to come out, and only then do you release your evidence that proves the Official Version's an absolute crock of bovine excrement?  (Much like the first option, you risk being shot/disappeared, but at least you get to point out that the Emperor has no clothes.  Do it loudly enough, and instead of disappearing you, maybe They'll just ignore you!)  Or do you just go through your pictures, realize that your SD card holds nothing that can change anything, securely erase every bit on it, and just start drinking heavily?

I wouldn't exactly put MLK and Ho Chi Minh in the same category.  One helped push forward civil rights in America, and the other helped establish an even more oppressive state than the one that the French established in Vietnam.

Also, while I respect what Gandhi did, it's pretty obvious that his people didn't follow his path for very long after his death.  They threw away what they gained from his influence by bickering amongst each other over matters of race and religion.  So, even though the British weren't exactly benevolent rulers of India, they did still manage to do a better job of ruling than their successors did in what would become Pakistan.


The French were less oppressive to the French in Viet Nam.  The British were better at ruling to the benefit of the British. I wouldn't, as an American, necessarily put MLK and Ho in the same category, but I think that the Vietnamese may have a higher opinion of him than we do, if only for the fact that he was instrumental in overthrowing the invaders to allow for self determination.  That is what it comes down to.  The histories of all civilizations are fraught from the beginning with factionalism.  The methods employed by the previously occupying forces,  the British in the Middle East, caused the problems leading up to this mess. It is my opinion that the best that can be done is to offer diplomatic and humanitarian assistance, but stay out of the fray.  Nothing should be done by one country in an occupying sense.

The French were less oppressive to the French in Viet Nam.  The British were better at ruling to the benefit of the British. I wouldn't, as an American, necessarily put MLK and Ho in the same category, but I think that the Vietnamese may have a higher opinion of him than we do, if only for the fact that he was instrumental in overthrowing the invaders to allow for self determination.  That is what it comes down to.  The histories of all civilizations are fraught from the beginning with factionalism.  The methods employed by the previously occupying forces,  the British in the Middle East, caused the problems leading up to this mess. It is my opinion that the best that can be done is to offer diplomatic and humanitarian assistance, but stay out of the fray.  Nothing should be done by one country in an occupying sense.


What does self-determination matter if all that comes out of self-rule is a lot more death and destruction?  Look at Africa.  Most of that continent was a lot more orderly (and a lot less violent and diseased) under European rule.  If a native ethnicity isn't capable of ruling itself in an orderly manner, then independence is useless.

Now, before I'm labeled as racist, think about this for a moment.  If we're all equals in terms of biology and race, then what really determines our fate as humans?  In my opinion, it is culture.  The functionality and adaptability of a culture is best demonstrated by things like self-rule.  If a recently liberated culture descends into violence and chaos without outside rule, then it is a sign to me that the culture in question MUST have an external ruler of some sort.  Either that, or the culture needs a very brutal dictator to sort things out and return order to the society involved.

Now, it is true that Ho Chi Minh functioned well in the latter capacity, but again, what is self-rule worth, if the new government is more oppressive than the last one?  The Vietnamese were better off under the French, just like the Pakistanis were better off under the British.  It's not because of what races they are -- it's because their cultures are less evolved.

culture might play a role but i think it's not fruitful to talk about culture unless you do it in relation to things like climate, access to trade routes, diversity of natural resources, social, political, and religious heritage. culture more arises out of these other factors than existing independent of them or being based on something so vaguely defined as "ethnicity." and i have to admit to finding the idea that certain "ethnicities" cant govern themselves pretty cringeworthy.

i understand islamic fundamentalism is bad but i think it rises out of the fact that the entire region has basically one exportable resource, which makes it impossible to develop a well-rounded civil society there. basically what happens throughout the middle east is that governments arise there that are basically one form of racket or another for seizing oil money. and that's not a cultural, ethnic or religious issue apart from being a geographical one. i think the geographical realities more underlie and create the cultural ones than anything else.

culture might play a role but i think it's not fruitful to talk about culture unless you do it in relation to things like climate, access to trade routes, diversity of natural resources, social, political, and religious heritage. culture more arises out of these other factors than existing independent of them or being based on something so vaguely defined as "ethnicity." and i have to admit to finding the idea that certain "ethnicities" cant govern themselves pretty cringeworthy.

True...  I would agree with you on most of that, but once a tradition is established, it takes a while for it to change.  My supposition is that much of the reason for why certain cultures are dysfunctional when given freedom is because of the slow tendency to change among humans.  In short, the more adaptable cultures dominate the world.  Might doesn't make right, but it works for the most part.

i understand islamic fundamentalism is bad but i think it rises out of the fact that the entire region has basically one exportable resource, which makes it impossible to develop a well-rounded civil society there. basically what happens throughout the middle east is that governments arise there that are basically one form of racket or another for seizing oil money. and that's not a cultural, ethnic or religious issue apart from being a geographical one. i think the geographical realities more underlie and create the cultural ones than anything else.


I would agree that these things play a large part in all this, but I would still argue some religions are less adaptable than others due to tradition.  The Islamic World is rather @$$-backwards in many regions, and I think it has more to do with pre-Islamic customs than economics or even Islam itself.

What does self-determination matter if all that comes out of self-rule is a lot more death and destruction?  Look at Africa.  Most of that continent was a lot more orderly (and a lot less violent and diseased) under European rule.  If a native ethnicity isn't capable of ruling itself in an orderly manner, then independence is useless.




More orderly, for whom?  At what cost to the native population?  You are looking at it from the experience of the ruling class.  The Europeans conducted what amounted to a brutal dictatorship.  If they had been as benevolent as you seem to think then the transition to self rule would have been orderly, but without the benefit of education, basic human rights, and the ability to participate in the governance of their own countries, coupled with the manipulation of the differing sects in a Machiavellian way in order to maintain control, the Europeans created the mess.  They came in with the specific intention of depleting the natural resources for their own benefit, the people be damned, oh yes very civilized, very culturally advanced of them.  Check out the history of the occupation what was known as The Belgian Congo and Rhodesia, they are glaring examples of the way in which the "culturally advanced"  Europeans brought civilization to the dark continent. The lives of the peoples of these countries were in many ways far more advanced culturally and civil before the advent of the European conquest than they were after. This is not old news..  For a grim look at how this still works check out the United States in the Mariana Islands.

Latest news 1-3-08, backs the first (?) finding that she died from hitting her head and no gunshot wounds..

This has more legs than the Kennedy Assassination, any grassy knolls around there at all?

More orderly, for whom?  At what cost to the native population?  You are looking at it from the experience of the ruling class.  The Europeans conducted what amounted to a brutal dictatorship.  If they had been as benevolent as you seem to think then the transition to self rule would have been orderly, but without the benefit of education, basic human rights, and the ability to participate in the governance of their own countries, coupled with the manipulation of the differing sects in a Machiavellian way in order to maintain control, the Europeans created the mess.  They came in with the specific intention of depleting the natural resources for their own benefit, the people be damned, oh yes very civilized, very culturally advanced of them.  Check out the history of the occupation what was known as The Belgian Congo and Rhodesia, they are glaring examples of the way in which the "culturally advanced"  Europeans brought civilization to the dark continent. The lives of the peoples of these countries were in many ways far more advanced culturally and civil before the advent of the European conquest than they were after. This is not old news..  For a grim look at how this still works check out the United States in the Mariana Islands.


This all depends on what areas you're talking about.  I agree that what the Europeans did was very Machiavellian, but many of the cultures they subdued weren't so great in their own right.  For example, before the Europeans got involved, many African tribes engaged in warfare with each other, and the result of this were prisoners of war turned into slaves.  The Europeans discovered this practice and decided to turn it into a slave trade.  So, if African tribes had not already been warring and enslaving each other in the first place, the Atlantic Slave Trade might not have even occurred.

See, where we disagree is in the nature of humanity.  We are already predisposed to vex and oppress each other.  This is why much of the world is not about wrong and right but about Darwinism via technology and conquest.  It's a kill or be killed kind of world we live in, and I'd rather be the oppressor than the oppressed.  In general, most of the colonial period was a demonstration of the military superiority that technology can bring.  It doesn't make it right, but it does work in terms of establishing order.

So, I repeat....  Which is worse, living under an oppressive but orderly state, or living in anarchy or something close to it?  Can you really say that a country like Sierra Leone is better off today than it was under the rule of the British in the 1940s?

The point I'm trying to make is that Europe successfully broke these cultures through domination.  To set them free only has led most of them to anarchy.  While we can agree that Europe never should have colonized them in the first place, many of these cultures weren't exactly "peaceful" or "free" before European rule either.  For example, there is a long history of conflict between Muslims and Hindus in India.

This all depends on what areas you're talking about.  I agree that what the Europeans did was very Machiavellian, but many of the cultures they subdued weren't so great in their own right.  For example, before the Europeans got involved, many African tribes engaged in warfare with each other, and the result of this were prisoners of war turned into slaves.  The Europeans discovered this practice and decided to turn it into a slave trade.  So, if African tribes had not already been warring and enslaving each other in the first place, the Atlantic Slave Trade might not have even occurred.

See, where we disagree is in the nature of humanity.  We are already predisposed to vex and oppress each other.  This is why much of the world is not about wrong and right but about Darwinism via technology and conquest.  It's a kill or be killed kind of world we live in, and I'd rather be the oppressor than the oppressed.  In general, most of the colonial period was a demonstration of the military superiority that technology can bring.  It doesn't make it right, but it does work in terms of establishing order.

So, I repeat....  Which is worse, living under an oppressive but orderly state, or living in anarchy or something close to it?  Can you really say that a country like Sierra Leone is better off today than it was under the rule of the British in the 1940s?

The point I'm trying to make is that Europe successfully broke these cultures through domination.  To set them free only has led most of them to anarchy.  While we can agree that Europe never should have colonized them in the first place, many of these cultures weren't exactly "peaceful" or "free" before European rule either.  For example, there is a long history of conflict between Muslims and Hindus in India.


(Shaking my head, where do I begin).  There were fundamental differences between the African slavery in African, European Slavery, and American slavery.  African slavery in African equated more to serfdom as opposed to what we have come to know as slavery.  European history has never been free or peaceful, so no need to cast aspersions on Muslims and Hindus. The lives of the working classes all over Europe were in many ways worse than those of the people we stepped in to "civilize", much as we do now to step in to "fight communism" or "terrorism" all buzzwords for making money.  In order for the people of the world to live decent lives their has to be, at some point revolution, or anarchy.  Live under an oppressive but orderly state?  My ggggrandparents did, in Virginia until the 1860s.  The Jews did in Germany in the 30s, the Congolese did in the Congo, the Indians did in India. the Native Americans did, I doubt that they will ever thank Andy Jackson for the long walk.  Was  self determination worth fighting for?  I believe that anyone living under those conditions thank God for the ones who stepped up to the plate to rid their lives of the oppressive orderliness, which were very oppressive, but far from orderly(unless, of course, you were Memsahib)

This all depends on what areas you're talking about.  I agree that what the Europeans did was very Machiavellian, but many of the cultures they subdued weren't so great in their own right. 
I don't agree with the rest of your post (I agree with what Danoota just said), but here you do make a salient point.  The anti-Western rhetoric at the universities gives the impression that only white Europeans/Americans are imperialist and oppressive, and left unmolested by the Ice People,* the rest of humanity would be one harmonious people.  No serious historian or anthropologist believes this.  From the pharoahs of Egypt to the emporors of China to the imperial civilizations of pre-Columbian America, there was an astounding amount of brutality worldwide.  The problem is when you look at the history behind current events, you find European imperialism is the culprit.  No getting around it.  If instead of Europe colonizing Asia it was Asia colonizing Europe, the Asian conquerors would have done to Europe what Europe did to Asia (look at what countries such as Japan, China, and Mongolia did to peoples they subjected for chrissakes).  However, that's just not what happened.  If Genghis Khan stormed Europe in the 13th century it would be a whole different story. 

* This is a term coined by Professor Leonard Jeffries, Black Studies, CCNY.  "Ice People" are Europeans and North Americans.  "Sun People" are just about everybody else, and Ice People aren't nice people.  Jeffries is one of a handful of true Black Supremicists in academia.  Like Ward Churchill, he's a wet dream for the Right.  Jeffries believes black people are superior because of higher melanin levels.  He also celebrated the Challenger space shuttle disaster because it stopped white people from "spreading their filth through the universe."  An interviewer once asked Jeffries what kind of world he'd like for his children.  Jeffries replied, "A world in which there aren't any white people."  Yeah, he's a racist crank.  I don't know what he's up to nowadays.
::)

(Shaking my head, where do I begin).  There were fundamental differences between the African slavery in African, European Slavery, and American slavery.  African slavery in African equated more to serfdom as opposed to what we have come to know as slavery.  European history has never been free or peaceful, so no need to cast aspersions on Muslims and Hindus.

While I agree with you that slavery has manifested itself in many different ways since the beginning of mankind, I would have to disagree with your last comment here.  I would actually argue the history of Islam was more brutal than that of Christianity in Europe.  I must also point out the Hindus had a very racist caste system for thousands of years before the English even conquered them.  Racism, warfare, and conquest are hardly unique to Europe.  The only difference is that the Europeans were better at it than most.  This is why they were able to conquer most of the world.

The lives of the working classes all over Europe were in many ways worse than those of the people we stepped in to "civilize", much as we do now to step in to "fight communism" or "terrorism" all buzzwords for making money.  In order for the people of the world to live decent lives their has to be, at some point revolution, or anarchy.  Live under an oppressive but orderly state?  My ggggrandparents did, in Virginia until the 1860s.  The Jews did in Germany in the 30s, the Congolese did in the Congo, the Indians did in India. the Native Americans did, I doubt that they will ever thank Andy Jackson for the long walk.  Was  self determination worth fighting for?  I believe that anyone living under those conditions thank God for the ones who stepped up to the plate to rid their lives of the oppressive orderliness, which were very oppressive, but far from orderly(unless, of course, you were Memsahib)

Well, I will agree with you that conflict is about the only way to progress in many cases.  I'm a conflict theorist when it comes to sociology.  My argument is that many conflicts do not lead to progress.  The bulk of my evidence for this is present in Africa.  Pakistan is a good example as well.

Yuri Orlov in the movie "Lord of War" said it best: "Every faction in Africa calls themselves by these noble names - Liberation this, Patriotic that, Democratic Republic of something-or-other... I guess they can't own up to what they usually are: a federation of worse oppressors than the last bunch of oppressors. Often, the most barbaric atrocities occur when both combatants proclaim themselves freedom-fighters."

Overall, what I'm saying is that, while we can agree that revolution sometimes leads to freedom and a better society, it leads to worse oppression than before in too many other cases.  The vast majority of the time, Communism demonstrated this drawback of revolution in many unfortunate countries.

I don't agree with the rest of your post (I agree with what Danoota just said), but here you do make a salient point.  The anti-Western rhetoric at the universities gives the impression that only white Europeans/Americans are imperialist and oppressive, and left unmolested by the Ice People,* the rest of humanity would be one harmonious people.  No serious historian or anthropologist believes this.  From the pharoahs of Egypt to the emporors of China to the imperial civilizations of pre-Columbian America, there was an astounding amount of brutality worldwide.  The problem is when you look at the history behind current events, you find European imperialism is the culprit.  No getting around it.  If instead of Europe colonizing Asia it was Asia colonizing Europe, the Asian conquerors would have done to Europe what Europe did to Asia (look at what countries such as Japan, China, and Mongolia did to peoples they subjected for chrissakes).  However, that's just not what happened.  If Genghis Khan stormed Europe in the 13th century it would be a whole different story.

I know what you're saying, but all this says to me is that Europeans had superior technology and strategies to the rest of the world.  They knew how best to oppress others and had the best tools available to do so.  I'm not saying this makes them better people, but it does mean, in practical terms, that they were best suited to dominate the world.

Nowadays, America seems more suited to dominance, which helps explain our massive military and imperialistic tendencies.  To me, this isn't a battle of wrong vs. right, this is a matter of oppressing vs. being oppressed.  If we didn't take such an active role in the world, other countries would.  China is already trying its hand at interventionism in Sudan while we're stuck in Iraq, for example.

I know what you're saying, but all this says to me is that Europeans had superior technology and strategies to the rest of the world.  They knew how best to oppress others and had the best tools available to do so.  I'm not saying this makes them better people, but it does mean, in practical terms, that they were best suited to dominate the world.

Nowadays, America seems more suited to dominance, which helps explain our massive military and imperialistic tendencies.  To me, this isn't a battle of wrong vs. right, this is a matter of oppressing vs. being oppressed.  If we didn't take such an active role in the world, other countries would.  China is already trying its hand at interventionism in Sudan while we're stuck in Iraq, for example.


So you believe we must oppress, if not we will be oppressed?  Do you see oppression as being a condition of dominance i.e. the one who dominates must oppress in order to retain control?

So you believe we must oppress, if not we will be oppressed?  Do you see oppression as being a condition of dominance i.e. the one who dominates must oppress in order to retain control?


To a degree...  yes.  It's a very disturbing thought, but it's one I've come to accept as reality.  For example, had we just let Communism sweep through the world without any resistance by us, things would be a lot worse today.  The Cold War was a situation where the Communists were one side of oppression vs. our side of it.  I'm not saying I agreed with all of our moves (like Vietnam was a lost cause), but we had to be interventionists in order to stem the tide of Communism.  Some of that involved supporting dictators (like Saddam).

Now that the Cold War is over and the War on Terror is in full force, our strategies have to change considerably.  We invaded Iraq with the Cold War mentality, and that's why it failed.  We should have just let Saddam stay in power.  Fighting terror requires a lot more discretion than fighting a conventional enemy, so in practical terms, maintaining our dominance requires less oppression than the Cold War did.  For example, we support Musharraf because he's the only leader we trust in Pakistan, and his own oppression of the people is about the only way to keep that country from completely dissolving into chaos.  Thankfully, most of the oppression we support is indirect these days, but it's still necessary to maintain our dominance against rising enemies like China.

We really do need to end our "most favored trade nation" status with China, but that's something that a lot of Corporate America is too myopic to understand.

I think it is an attitude that is, or should be, considered archaic.  The problem is the oppression falls on the most vulnerable, while those who are able to affect change are pandered to.  The leadership who manipulate the people are the ones who have to be oppressed, but they are routinely wined, dined, and coddled, before being offered "political asylum".

I think it is an attitude that is, or should be, considered archaic.  The problem is the oppression falls on the most vulnerable, while those who are able to affect change are pandered to.  The leadership who manipulate the people are the ones who have to be oppressed, but they are routinely wined, dined, and coddled, before being offered "political asylum".


I've never said that oppression is in any way fair.  I wish the world worked differently, but I know of no period in history when oppression was not a common theme.  About the best we can hope for is our current situation.  America and the rest of the First World offer a great amount of freedom to their citizens, but even this freedom and level of prosperity is dependent on oppressing others outside of our countries.  For example, the vast majority of what we buy is made in Third World countries where labor rights are unheard of.  So the cheap goods and prosperity we enjoy are literally dependent on oppression.

Even if another World War occurred and we had to start civilization all over again, some culture would eventually oppress another to be on top.  It is simply human.  This will never end until humans cease to exist.

To a degree...  yes.  It's a very disturbing thought, but it's one I've come to accept as reality.  For example, had we just let Communism sweep through the world without any resistance by us, things would be a lot worse today.  The Cold War was a situation where the Communists were one side of oppression vs. our side of it.  I'm not saying I agreed with all of our moves (like Vietnam was a lost cause), but we had to be interventionists in order to stem the tide of Communism.  Some of that involved supporting dictators (like Saddam).

Now that the Cold War is over and the War on Terror is in full force, our strategies have to change considerably.  We invaded Iraq with the Cold War mentality, and that's why it failed.  We should have just let Saddam stay in power.  Fighting terror requires a lot more discretion than fighting a conventional enemy, so in practical terms, maintaining our dominance requires less oppression than the Cold War did.  For example, we support Musharraf because he's the only leader we trust in Pakistan, and his own oppression of the people is about the only way to keep that country from completely dissolving into chaos.  Thankfully, most of the oppression we support is indirect these days, but it's still necessary to maintain our dominance against rising enemies like China.

We really do need to end our "most favored trade nation" status with China, but that's something that a lot of Corporate America is too myopic to understand.

The war on terror is a war on a concept; hence, the war on terror is a war we can never win.  This so-called "war" is waged by our government against our liberties.  The one thing that would truly reduce terrorism is changing our foreign policy so the rest of the world's people don't fear and hate us.  Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich will both tell you so.  It's the one thing our current government is determined NOT to do.
::)

America and the rest of the First World offer a great amount of freedom to their citizens, but even this freedom and level of prosperity is dependent on oppressing others outside of our countries.  For example, the vast majority of what we buy is made in Third World countries where labor rights are unheard of.  So the cheap goods and prosperity we enjoy are literally dependent on oppression.



Cheap goods and prosperity do not depend on oppression. Greed depends on oppression. 

Opinions are like a$$hole$.  Everyone has one and the all stink.   ;D


I think mine's the worst since I'm in a swing-state and voted for a warmonger...twice. :-[

I think mine's the worst since I'm in a swing-state and voted for a warmonger...twice. :-[
au contraire, there's nothing that tickles me more than a contrite ex-bush voter. gives me hope. :)

The war on terror is a war on a concept; hence, the war on terror is a war we can never win.  This so-called "war" is waged by our government against our liberties.  The one thing that would truly reduce terrorism is changing our foreign policy so the rest of the world's people don't fear and hate us.  Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich will both tell you so.  It's the one thing our current government is determined NOT to do.
::)


It's similar to the Cold War, we thought we wouldn't win but...we rose above it.

However, this world will be getting even worse and our worst president is still waiting in the wings, and you would think Bush is bad now, just wait and see.

The war on terror is a war on a concept; hence, the war on terror is a war we can never win.  This so-called "war" is waged by our government against our liberties.  The one thing that would truly reduce terrorism is changing our foreign policy so the rest of the world's people don't fear and hate us.  Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich will both tell you so.  It's the one thing our current government is determined NOT to do.
::)


...and why should they be?  Again, if we don't intervene, other powers contrary to our interests will.  China is setting itself up to be another world policeman, and I don't know about you, but I'd rather we do it than them.

I think we can agree that interventionism often leads to resentment, but that's the burden we have as the world's last superpower.  They can resent us all they want, but we can remain on top if we just change some of our energy policies, healthcare policies, border policies, and trade policies.

I also think we agree that the Patriot Act was wrong.  But we can still be interventionist without infringing upon our own rights -- we just need smarter leaders who don't get us into useless wars.  Not all conflicts are useless -- we need to do something about Darfur, for example.

Cheap goods and prosperity do not depend on oppression. Greed depends on oppression. 


It's one and the same.  The only true state of universal economic equality that would be possible in this world would involve a major drop in our own standard of living to raise the standards of the Third World.

Now how many people do you honestly think are in this country that would be willing to live at a 2nd World level, just so that the Third World can live better?  I know I wouldn't.

It's one and the same.  The only true state of universal economic equality that would be possible in this world would involve a major drop in our own standard of living to raise the standards of the Third World.

Now how many people do you honestly think are in this country that would be willing to live at a 2nd World level, just so that the Third World can live better?  I know I wouldn't.
well, it's not really "our" standard, not with income disparity in this country being what it is. we're pretty much already living a second world standard, and the folks in less fortunate countries are living a third world standard, so something like one fifth of one percent of the country can live like robin leech. ::)

well, it's not really "our" standard, not with income disparity in this country being what it is. we're pretty much already living a second world standard, and the folks in less fortunate countries are living a third world standard, so something like one fifth of one percent of the country can live like robin leech. ::)


Hey, I'm the first to admit our wealth disparity is bad, but the average American is living at nowhere near Second World levels.  Do you really think most Americans live on the same level as Russians?  Yes, we do have a significant lower class, but things haven't gotten as bad as you're implying.

There are things that can be done to alleviate the wealth disparity within our country, but there is very little that can be done to alleviate the wealth disparity of the world overall.

Hey, I'm the first to admit our wealth disparity is bad, but the average American is living at nowhere near Second World levels.  Do you really think most Americans live on the same level as Russians?  Yes, we do have a significant lower class, but things haven't gotten as bad as you're implying.

There are things that can be done to alleviate the wealth disparity within our country, but there is very little that can be done to alleviate the wealth disparity of the world overall.
i'm not sure what you mean by "second world," but the russians are a bad example. if you wanted to compare the american standard of living to the europeans though, for instance, or the australians, i think you'd find there's a real contest there. there didn't use to be, but things have gotten quite a bit less secure here since the 80s. a lot of people have hidden the fact by running up loads of personal debt but the fact is, there isn't really a social safety net in america anymore, and it shows. and i think rubbing the boot further into the neck of the third world isn't going to particularly help.

It's one and the same.  The only true state of universal economic equality that would be possible in this world would involve a major drop in our own standard of living to raise the standards of the Third World.

Now how many people do you honestly think are in this country that would be willing to live at a 2nd World level, just so that the Third World can live better?  I know I wouldn't.


I think you have no clue about what you're talking about! 2nd world? 3rd world? We are people like you,same f*cking problems! You don't think there's hunger in America? I think it's even worse there,cause it's hidden and when it shows up like it did with Katrina,you pretend is an isolated case that is being taking care of,as if!
You must have a really nice life and being clueless about everything that happens around you,Macphisto ::)

I think you have no clue about what you're talking about! 2nd world? 3rd world? We are people like you,same f*cking problems! You don't think there's hunger in America? I think it's even worse there,cause it's hidden and when it shows up like it did with Katrina,you pretend is an isolated case that is being taking care of,as if!
You must have a really nice life and being clueless about everything that happens around you,Macphisto ::)


Sorry I touched a nerve, but if you'd like to debate things rationally, a less personal tone would be helpful.

If you have a clue, you know as well as I that a country like Brazil, for example, has far worse poverty than America does.  Yet, the irony is that both Brazil and America have around the same wealth distribution.  The important difference between America and Brazil is that the poor here are nowhere near as poor as the poor in Brazil.  By the same token, the fabulously wealthy in America are much wealthier than those in Brazil.

So really, all this comes down to is each country decreasing its own wealth disparity from within.  Sure, America might have a lot of the money in the world, but the question you have to ask yourself is...  If America was the poorer nation and Brazil was the wealthy superpower, do you think Brazil would sacrifice its own prosperity for America?  Nope....

We won't either.  That is the true essence of equality among humanity.  We are indeed both people and very much like each other.  The only difference between us would seem to be what each of us accepts as reality.  What I see of humans is not particularly uplifting, to put it mildly.  I see the oppression and poverty around me, but I know that it will never end.  When it comes down to it, those with wealth (regardless of race, gender, or religion) generally hold onto that wealth.  Greed and selfishness are both natural to our species.

So yes, I know quite a bit about the world around me, but I just don't care to sugarcoat the harsh reality of human nature.  I'm not saying it's right.  It's simply real.  And if I'd like to get a piece of that wealth around me, can you blame me?  We all want a piece of it, but some of us are just in a better position to acquire it.  It's like an advanced version of Darwinism.

i'm not sure what you mean by "second world," but the russians are a bad example. if you wanted to compare the american standard of living to the europeans though, for instance, or the australians, i think you'd find there's a real contest there. there didn't use to be, but things have gotten quite a bit less secure here since the 80s. a lot of people have hidden the fact by running up loads of personal debt but the fact is, there isn't really a social safety net in america anymore, and it shows. and i think rubbing the boot further into the neck of the third world isn't going to particularly help.


Admittedly, exploiting the Third World only works for so long.  There are many things that need to change about how we run things.  I would like to see us decrease the wealth disparity in this country and perhaps, improve the funding of our social programs.  I wouldn't mind us socializing medicine -- especially if it is done at the state level.  And debt is most certainly a major problem for us.

What I was getting at earlier is that it is inevitable for wealthier nations to prey upon poorer ones.  America is far from being the only guilty culprit, but we do get more attention for doing it.

Sorry I touched a nerve, but if you'd like to debate things rationally, a less personal tone would be helpful.

If you have a clue, you know as well as I that a country like Brazil, for example, has far worse poverty than America does.  Yet, the irony is that both Brazil and America have around the same wealth distribution.  The important difference between America and Brazil is that the poor here are nowhere near as poor as the poor in Brazil.  By the same token, the fabulously wealthy in America are much wealthier than those in Brazil.

So really, all this comes down to is each country decreasing its own wealth disparity from within.  Sure, America might have a lot of the money in the world, but the question you have to ask yourself is...  If America was the poorer nation and Brazil was the wealthy superpower, do you think Brazil would sacrifice its own prosperity for America?  Nope....

We won't either.  That is the true essence of equality among humanity.  We are indeed both people and very much like each other.  The only difference between us would seem to be what each of us accepts as reality.  What I see of humans is not particularly uplifting, to put it mildly.  I see the oppression and poverty around me, but I know that it will never end.  When it comes down to it, those with wealth (regardless of race, gender, or religion) generally hold onto that wealth.  Greed and selfishness are both natural to our species.

So yes, I know quite a bit about the world around me, but I just don't care to sugarcoat the harsh reality of human nature.  I'm not saying it's right.  It's simply real.  And if I'd like to get a piece of that wealth around me, can you blame me?  We all want a piece of it, but some of us are just in a better position to acquire it.  It's like an advanced version of Darwinism.


You didn't hit a nerve at all,you just talked about what i know and live everyday and i'm sorry to say but you're far from the truth.
Brazil and America are actually pretty similar in many ways,our poorest ones can compare to yours and our richest are as wealthy (different scale of course) and they hold as much power as the wealthiest americans do in your land. And our way of life is so close to yours you'd be shocked,because unlike Europe where i truly felt they have such a better outlook on life,overhere the only thing that speaks is money. Still i look at my country and feel we're going somewhere,because despite the poverty,the crime,the corruption,we still want to fight for a better life for all,and it's sad that you in America lost that...
You can say "oh that's just the way it is",but guess what? it isn't! You can be disillusioned with humans as you wish,i'm not. I don't think human nature is only about greed an selfishness,i am not and i know i'm not alone.
I find it funny how easy it is to act like you do,the world would have never moved anywhere if all thought like you,is it better now? i don't know. Am i glad that there are people who still believe it can be better? hell yeah!
Am i being too personal? sorry about that,it's how i talk :-\\ maybe if i went to school i could've mastered the 3rd person pov...you know? the cowards pov(i'm j/k i swear :D)

You didn't hit a nerve at all,you just talked about what i know and live everyday and i'm sorry to say but you're far from the truth.
Brazil and America are actually pretty similar in many ways,our poorest ones can compare to yours and our richest are as wealthy (different scale of course) and they hold as much power as the wealthiest americans do in your land. And our way of life is so close to yours you'd be shocked,because unlike Europe where i truly felt they have such a better outlook on life,overhere the only thing that speaks is money. Still i look at my country and feel we're going somewhere,because despite the poverty,the crime,the corruption,we still want to fight for a better life for all,and it's sad that you in America lost that...

I'm not sure where you see that we've lost it, at least in domestic terms.  I can see why you would think we've lost it when it comes to foreign policy, but that's a different story....

You can say "oh that's just the way it is",but guess what? it isn't! You can be disillusioned with humans as you wish,i'm not. I don't think human nature is only about greed an selfishness,i am not and i know i'm not alone.
I find it funny how easy it is to act like you do,the world would have never moved anywhere if all thought like you,is it better now? i don't know. Am i glad that there are people who still believe it can be better? hell yeah!
Am i being too personal? sorry about that,it's how i talk :-\\ maybe if i went to school i could've mastered the 3rd person pov...you know? the cowards pov(i'm j/k i swear :D)


I see, well, now that you've explained yourself some, you don't seem as personal with things.  But yes, I'm glad there are those like you with hope as well, but I believe the role of the cynic (my role) is equally as necessary as yours.  Dreamers and idealists are catalysts for change, but cynics and realists force that change into a form more adaptable to reality.

And by the way, your English is fine.  It's certainly much better than my Portuguese...  ;)

Back to Bhutto

Her son(read husband) is now asking for an inquiry into her death felling that they will not get a fair shake from Musshareff, a fair guess.  So why will the family not allow an autopsy?  All the back and forth about what killed her, forensics should be able to tell the cause. It is all part of the equation.  I tell you I have as much regard for the family as I do for Mushareff, i.e. not much.