Cyprus-Forum.com

by **Saint Jimmy** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:13 am

erolz wrote:There is nothing 'new' about it, unless by new you mean the last 500 years. Europeans and neo Europeans (USA and others) have been trying to 'control the world' since 1500 onwards and been doing a pretty good job at it as well. Certainly the methods have changed over time and some of the relative positions of European and neo European elements have change in regards to each other (but not in regard to the rest of the world) - but the underlying objective of ensuring protecting and continuing European / Neo European dominace over the rest of the world remains unchanged.

True! Let me just add that this is just the logical sequence of things. Every empire or whatever you want to call it tries to impose a world order (new or old) that best serves its own interests. The process keeps going, until the empire declines, either because it has grown too big for its own good, allowing uncontrollable vulnerabilities (where America is headed now), or because the system becomes obsolete with time (what happened to the USSR). And the process starts over again with the new empire.

by **cannedmoose** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:03 am

Saint Jimmy wrote:True! Let me just add that this is just the logical sequence of things. Every empire or whatever you want to call it tries to impose a world order (new or old) that best serves its own interests. The process keeps going, until the empire declines, either because it has grown too big for its own good, allowing uncontrollable vulnerabilities (where America is headed now), or because the system becomes obsolete with time (what happened to the USSR). And the process starts over again with the new empire.

In which case, Cyprus should be cosying up to Beijing as we speak... start learning Mandarin folks! :lol:

p.s. still laughing at magikthrill's US-UK joke... too true man... although if the US has a pop at Iran, I forsee Tony tugging on the leash :wink:

by **cannedmoose** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:06 am

Blimey, just realised it's VERY late ... off to bed folks or I'll look like this

in the mornin'

by **magikthrill** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:27 am

cannedmoose,

i thought thats what you already looked like

by **Piratis** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:24 am

Jimmy, the whole "terrorism" thing is the excuse. If you look at who created Bin Laden and Husain in the first place you will see the Americans behind them. The real reason is to control the world and manage to stay on top with all the financial benefits that this brings them. Their reasons for their invasions are:
1) Oil (as magicthrill said)
2) Big military corporations. Peace is not profitable for them. After USSR collapsed they needed a new enemy so there will be an excuse to continue the military expenditures. Democrats but especially Republicans get a huge part of their support from these corporations and they have to return the "favor".
3) Display of power superiority. In a few words they are trying to scare the whole world so nobody will dare to do anything against their interests.

If they wanted to fight terrorism they wouldn't act in the way that actually creates more terrorism. And by the way, what if the "terrorists" had satellites, high precision missiles and B-52s and they could attack the US the way US attacks other countries. They wouldn't be terrorists anymore?

No doubt that most of those people are fundamentalists that should be stopped. However the Americans are no better. Actually recently in the UK (their best ally) when they asked them which country imposes the biggest threat to the world most people said the US.

Sure, the Americans serve their interests. The question is why do you support them?

by **cannedmoose** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:26 pm

magikthrill wrote:cannedmoose,

i thought thats what you already looked like

No, I'm much less attractive than that thrill...

by **Saint Jimmy** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:08 pm

Piratis wrote:Jimmy, the whole "terrorism" thing is the excuse. If you look at who created Bin Laden and Husain in the first place you will see the Americans behind them.

This is true. Agreed so far. Bin Laden and his network were originally trained by the CIA to serve its own purposes, and Saddam was secretly and not-so-secretly armed by the US in its war against Iran. When these two turned around and faced the Americans, did you expect the US to sit back and enjoy it? I don't understand the argument.

Piratis wrote:The real reason is to control the world and manage to stay on top with all the financial benefits that this brings them.

Of course it is! This is not subject to debate! Because if someone were to challenge our economy (the RoC's, I mean), provided we could, we would hit back. So what's so irrational?

Piratis wrote:Their reasons for their invasions are:
1) Oil (as magicthrill said)
2) Big military corporations. Peace is not profitable for them. After USSR collapsed they needed a new enemy so there will be an excuse to continue the military expenditures. Democrats but especially Republicans get a huge part of their support from these corporations and they have to return the "favor".
3) Display of power superiority. In a few words they are trying to scare the whole world so nobody will dare to do anything against their interests.

All right:

1) How did the US benefit economically from the war?
2) Are you serious? Is it that easy for you to see people as corrupt assholes? If you were the president of the United States, would you conduct war, killing people, just because some military corporation asked you to?
3) Yes, this is the only one I can agree with. 'To do anything against their interests'. Which is exactly what Al Qaeda did and Saddam was about to do.

Piratis wrote:If they wanted to fight terrorism they wouldn't act in the way that actually creates more terrorism.

I asked again, in a previous post, but I got no reply. What was it the the US did, that originally caused terrorism? What had they done to deserve 9/11? Was that just caused by pure hatred?

Piratis wrote:No doubt that most of those people are fundamentalists that should be stopped.

OK, hold it there for one moment. You acknowledge the need to stop them, you reject the US' way of doing it, but you don't suggest a better way of doing it. Is there something wrong with that?
Put yourself in Bush's shoes. You got this problem, it has already cost you 3,500 American lives, on American soil, let alone the economic repercussions, and you have to deal with it, somehow, because if you just ignore it, who-knows-how-many-more terrorist groups will be encouraged to bring you down... What do you do? Forgive and forget?

Piratis wrote:However the Americans are no better. Actually recently in the UK (their best ally) when they asked them which country imposes the biggest threat to the world most people said the US.

Do you mean that in a poll, the Brits said that the US is the biggest threat to the world? And what does that mean? It's true that anti-americanism is surging globally, that was no secret.

Piratis wrote:Sure, the Americans serve their interests. The question is why do you support them?

Because cheap anti-americanism is the easy way out. Half the world went on marches to prevent the war in Iraq, but all those people, although they meant well, had no alternative solution to the problem. I could say 'Fuck the blood-thirsty Americans', too, but then, when London and Rome followed Madrid in devastating terrorist attacks, we'd be feeling sooooo sorry for those poor people who died, and we'd hate those evil terrorists who blew up the buildings.