 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:24
|
|
Orange:
You think a racially-based country that becomes imperialistic would give a damn about the foreign 'vassals'?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001 time: 05:24
|
|
What's your definition of a racial state in the first place?
In France, anyone born in France can be French (you may have to choose your nationality when you come of age, which I think is silly), exactly as children of a French. You can also become French through other means, but that probably takes more time than becoming citizen of the U.S.
That is not racial, that is ground-based, as the US.
Furthermore, the US have an history of quotas against immigration, which don't really plead in favour of a non-racial state.
Also, the U.S. has laws that makes its citizens unequal. I may be wrong but I think you don't have to be of American nationality in order to be eligible for presidency, but have to have been born on the U.S. soil. This is a discrimination between citizens of the same state which, IMO, confines to racism (though I understand it is a leftover of the time when all Americans were Brittish one year before so they had to coin out a law which would make the difference with the English).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Trifna
|
 |
of anchovies
Jul 2001 time: 13:24
|
|
Other countries, if they have the same kind of mass medias and all, will do same since it's all the same humans. A political system where the worst elements are going to the top is a problem. But it doesn't make it correct It has to be stopped.
NOW,
to anyone who'd think USA's government is on the right path, look to this:
It is before 1991 that Saddam did his worst atrocities. They were (among other things) bio-chemical weapons attacks done against Iran's civilian population and Iraq's dissident populations (Kurds). It is at that time that USA was supporting Iraq, and they would even answer to journalists saying that Irak was using such methods such things by official communiqués saying that it is a non sense, Saddam "is our ally and friend" (quoted from Bush, father). I do not remember exactly, but I think the sources for such weapons were furnished by USA's government (to do medical research or soemthing I guess, officially. It's what is done with Israël).
Okay, so let's stick just to this little element without losing ourselves on debates that are wider and longer. It's coming from Noam Chomsky in a conference (and in his books, certainly). Noam Chomsky is one of the leading American dissident (Massachusett's Institute of Technology teacher).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Graag
|
 |
London
Nov 1999 time: 05:24
|
|
quote: I do not remember exactly, but I think the sources for such weapons were furnished by USA's government |
Hey don't forget us! While Saddam was gassing, shooting and generally kicking the crap out of anyone he didn't like, the UK was a solid supporter. We sold him a shitload of weapons. Oh, sorry I mean farming supplies, that Iraq magically converted into guns, planes, bombs and chemical weapons.
As an interesting aside, I read somewhere that the US (CIA), while still good buddies with Iraq gave Saddam 'the go-ahead' to attack the Kurds, in order to have an excuse to start the gulf war. If anyone cares I'll find a link.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:24
|
|
While the Amercian law and texts may go in AS' direction (indeed, you merely have to be born on American ground to become one), there is a huge difference between legal texts and reality.
Last century, France was imperialistic, and justified itself with the very same reasons AS is saying now : formally, France wanted to "share its great civilization to the backwards people of Africa" (read Jules Ferry's speeches on these issues, it's even stupider than AS' assumptions).
A mere 2 centuries ago, France wasn't only made of French people, far from it : Britannians (no idea on how you say this in English), Basques and Corsicans mostly didn't speak any French word, and there were tons of local languages. Ethnically, France is a mix between Latin, Celtic, and Germanic ethnicities (with a domination of Latin blood). If AS says France is only made of French now, it's because of 150 years of agressive cultural assimilation.
Ethnically, France remains quite varied if you consider Alsacians, Basques, Britannians and Corsicans not to be ethnically French (some do). Also, we have a big Arab minority, and have been an immigration country for one century, with many peole of Italian / Spanish / Portuguese / Subsaharian African ascent.
I am not defending France as being more "socially advanced" than a country like Germany which always built itself on bloodright rather than groundright (Many people in Germany are Turks even if their family lives in Germany for several generations). In fact, France may be behind : racist movements like Le Pen's one get 15% regularily. Our Blacks and Arabs, while being full-fledged citizens, get constantly discrimanted by the population and by the police. The rift between whites (whatever if they come from Italy or from Britanny in the first place) and the non-whites is increasing. That's not what I call the most advanced society.
This is deep rooted : during its imperialism, France was supposed to integrate all conquered countries (like AS expects the US to do), but all conquered people weren't equal : in Algeria, Jews became full-fledged French citizens, while Muslims always remained 2nd class citizens. In Subsaharian Africa, there was a permanent and obvious racism, even if officially, black people were to become French in the future. Same for Asia.
Sorry for the long hiatus about France, but French "multinational" ideals are very close to American ones, and very opposite to German ones. With this example I know well, I simply wanted to show that whatever the law, an imperial state will remain racist, and will keep plundering resources of conquered countries.
There are some reasons why the US are currently the least horrible imparialists around, but AS' point is laughable.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Trifna
NOW,
to anyone who'd think USA's government is on the right path, look to this:
It is before 1991 that Saddam did his worst atrocities. They were (among other things) bio-chemical weapons attacks done against Iran's civilian population and Iraq's dissident populations (Kurds). It is at that time that USA was supporting Iraq, and they would even answer to journalists saying that Irak was using such methods such things by official communiqués saying that it is a non sense, Saddam "is our ally and friend" (quoted from Bush, father). I do not remember exactly, but I think the sources for such weapons were furnished by USA's government (to do medical research or soemthing I guess, officially. It's what is done with Israël).
|
Saddam was a better choice than Ayatollah Khomeini. As long as he gased Ayatollah's minions, he was our 'friend'.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Trifna
|
 |
of anchovies
Jul 2001 time: 13:24
|
|
There wasn't only Khomeini...
It's like the situation now. In the people that are proposed for the post-Saddam, democratic ones aren't listed alot... but that guy responsible for bloody Kurb repressing is in this! Non-sense, but he may give better oil conditions.... But I never said Khomeni was a better solution than Saddam of course.
About USA vs Middle East, I'll answer you this, Lord (its a message I posted earlier):
"NOW,
to anyone who'd think USA's government is on the right path, look to this:
It is before 1991 that Saddam did his worst atrocities. They were (among other things) bio-chemical weapons attacks done against Iran's civilian population and Iraq's dissident populations (Kurds). It is at that time that USA was supporting Iraq, and they would even answer to journalists saying that Irak was using such methods such things by official communiqués saying that it is a non sense, Saddam "is our ally and friend" (quoted from Bush, father). I do not remember exactly, but I think the sources for such weapons were furnished by USA's government (to do medical research or soemthing I guess, officially. It's what is done with Israël).
Okay, so let's stick just to this little element without losing ourselves on debates that are wider and longer. It's coming from Noam Chomsky in a conference (and in his books, certainly). Noam Chomsky is one of the leading American dissident (Massachusett's Institute of Technology teacher)."
Last edited by Trifna on 13-01-2003 at 01:49
|
|
|  |
 |
|
zulu9812
|
 |
of Scotland
Jan 2002 time: 05:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Agathon
The United States is a lousy place to live because it has:
(1) Slaves: well, illegal workers aren't technically slaves, but they don't enjoy any of the rights of citizens and are basically tolerated as an underclass. Forced labourers in prison however are slaves - there is just no other way of looking at it. |
Technically, since they're not citizens, they don't have rights. In fact, in times of necessary crisis, the government, wanting to be seen to be doing something, make an example of their illegal worker population. Don't believe me? It happened in the months after 9/11. And why are the illegal immigrants tolerated? Cheap labour for the businessess, and the business men rule America. Why do businessmen rule America? Because in the US, you have to buy airtime, which means the richest parties get the most coverage. In Britain, party political broadcast time is allocated based on a party's no. of seats. But since only the rich parties get airtime, other parties don't get a look-in. The status quo in America is shocking, but it will never change. It will never change because the status quo suits the businessmen and the businessmen back whichever politician will help keep it that way.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970 time: 21:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by zulu9812
Technically, since they're not citizens, they don't have rights. In fact, in times of necessary crisis, the government, wanting to be seen to be doing something, make an example of their illegal worker population. Don't believe me? It happened in the months after 9/11. And why are the illegal immigrants tolerated? Cheap labour for the businessess, and the business men rule America. |
I agree with this. We do it up old school Dutch Mercantilism style.
quote:
Why do businessmen rule America? Because in the US, you have to buy airtime, which means the richest parties get the most coverage. In Britain, party political broadcast time is allocated based on a party's no. of seats. But since only the rich parties get airtime, other parties don't get a look-in. The status quo in America is shocking, but it will never change. It will never change because the status quo suits the businessmen and the businessmen back whichever politician will help keep it that way. |
This part is pretty exaggerated though.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|