MARCELL DAREUS POWER

its hard to argue with facts, huh? pretty soon we will all being making 20,000 a year working 12 hr days and this will be considered upper middle class... oh wait, thats texas now...

sign levitre!

i think we are set. its also important to let young players develop, let them play. thats why you drafted them...

i thought this might be helpful for u tom...

race to the bottom...

you mad bro? wow, read persepolis. they remember clearly...

so what is your argument?

its called nafta... happened to flint too...

it is established fact the cia put the shah in power. so i dont know what to say here. i didnt say we started the apartheid, i said we supported it... i guess installing autocratic regimes which murder and torture doesnt mean we murder and torture... even though the cia was directly involved. really?

again insult... please make an argument... what conflict are you referring to? iraq, iran? cuba? lets make this simple............. if saddam installed a dictatorship in canada to get better prices on resources, would you support it? do you think that is moral?

no, the US is responsible because they put saddam in power and supported his mafia tactics. who said anything about a photo op? i dont understand what you are saying after that. iran had a revolution in 79, to overthrow our dictator the shah. we then told saddam to invade iran, Madeleine Albright admitted it. these are established facts, not opinion. the reason his predecessor was killed is because he too, sadat, was a supporter of US foreign policy( the treaty with israel), which was murdering millions for oil and murdering palestinians....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack please stop the insults. we are having a discussion on hisotry and morality. there is no need for that. it just shows immaturity and a weak argument. i disagree with you but i never said you were an idiot. come on man... please specify a conflict? which war? what circumstance? if you want, we can discuss terrorism related to a specific issue.

please stop the insults. and no, i dont believe 911 was an inside job. i said the US is responsible and in some cases directly involved. so yeah, cut the semantics who put the bathist party in power? the shah? mubarak? the contras? the batistas?

again, some food with a little **** is still ****. im calling it out. besides, thats utterly false. the US govt is responsible for the murder of millions upon millions. iran iraq saudi arabia yemen egypt palestine south africa apartheid all latin and south america east timor/indonesia vietnam cambodia neoliberalism - the list is about a thousand pages of US atrocities... if robert hare was giving a psychological profile for our foreign policy im pretty sure he would reveal hannibal lecter. read up on the contras and what they did to women and children. i have no problem calling reagan a mass murderer. you know why? because its true. wiki-A Human Rights Watch report found that the Contras were guilty of targeting health care clinics and health care workers for assassination; kidnapping civilians; torturing and executing civilians, including children, who were captured in combat; raping women; indiscriminately attacking civilians and civilian homes; seizing civilian property; and burning civilian houses in captured towns.[20] the report also included the cutting off of breasts... i want to let you know i was in the military, and i left when i realized how wrong i was. but this is my judgement, so believe what you want. i find it mildly ironic that conservatives distrust the state on economic issues, but then trust the state with foreign policy. again, cognitive dissonance.

Of course, but thats not an argument for acting immoral. if it were, than any nation could do whatever horrible act and simply say others are doing it. i understand being practical, again, we dont live in a perfect world, but for gods sake, putting a mad man in power like saddam and then telling him to invade iran is beyond horrible. its megalomaniacal/pathological... millions of people were murdered for cheap oil... really?

so mubarak runs a totalitarian regime, backed by the US, secret police and all, and islamic groups want to kill him... ok, your point? if a dictator took over in the US, would you want to kill him? or maybe make his life uncomfortable? i never said if the US stopped imperial adventures, the world would be peaceful. i am simply saying our actions have been immoral and hypocritical. again, i never said we would have a utopia if america never existed. im simply calling out bs..

anyone interested in this topic should read robert pape... sam harris is good too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom#Political_theory

i knew this was a horrible analogy. it was just a hypothetical guys..

no, i should clarify, if he started a fight, then you cant claim self defense. personally i dont think he started it. i was just using a hypothetical. sry remember i said we need to ask why? this is why not all terrorism is justified. i never said the afghan people were justified in their violence when the quran was burnt.

ill stop you right there respectfully. egypt was occupied by an american backed dictator for over 30 years. mubarak. this was what the whole arab spring was about...the saudi royal family is a despotic regime backed by the US also. as far as targeting civilians, most of these people who have been occupied and tortured have little means in military power. believe me, if hezbollah had a legit air force and military, they would rather use that. from what i know, some of this is religious, and the other part is viewed as collateral damage. also, civilians are not always targeted, the marines in lebanon, and the attack on the USS COLE. for example, when civilians are targeted in israel, the palestinian people view this as collateral damage. the same would be true if canada invaded the US in 1948 and kicked people out of their homes in montana and the dakotas. the canadians living there would be targeted. its ironic because israel claiming self defense is similar to germany claiming self defense after they invaded poland or france. you cant punch someone and then claim self defense... not to segway, but this is what the whole zimmerman case rests on. can you start a fight and then claim self defense. obviously you cant... so there is an issue of collateral damage in suicide bombing where the people targeted are either overtly occupying territory or they are systematically targeted because organizations like hezbollah choose terrorism for political reasons, ie this is easier than working through traditional military warfare... i would argue fire bombing cities in japan or europe in ww2 is no different than 911. in fact, it was worse in ww2, millions of civilians were bombed, for being in occupied territory. what is so strange is you are looking at the ugly blowback against american foreign policy and saying " look how mean and violent they are ". again, the question is why? if you want to stop terrorism, than stop participating in it. robert pape has some great work on this issue. here-http://danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf its more important to ask if the reaction is justified, ie who started what, not so much asking are different tactics of reaction too violent... you are paying attention to the strategy and not so much the reasons behind why that strategy is in place... not to be funny, but remember the movie red dawn. lol if this really happened, of course you would engage in terrorism against the soviets.

thats called a race to the bottom. this is why free trade makes no sense.

its a credit bubble... it will eventually burst. it already has, but inflation will take over... just like a slinky stretched out, it will eventually contract, ie the credit markets will realize there never was that much money.

ever heard of the wild wild west? really man? you should read hobbes social contract. its a good starting point. jmo