The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ middle_east/2396613.stm
And so ends the careers of the USS Cole bombers....CNN and Fox also have confirmed that these were the guys responsible.
They took lives, and now they have been stopped.
~~Belldandy~~
And so ends the careers of the USS Cole bombers....CNN and Fox also have confirmed that these were the guys responsible.
They took lives, and now they have been stopped.
~~Belldandy~~
Page:
Dr Duck wrote:
> Belldandy:
>
> Would you consider your underlying philosophy to be based on / along
> the lines of Positivism?
Not really, but I don't really know too much about positivism. I dislike theories and arguments which criticise that which those same critics have no answer for themselves.
It's fine to say somethings wrong, but say how it could be done instead rather than just say "No!". I believe too many people have ideas which rely on the idea of some kind of perfect world full of equlaity, social justice, and free of poverty. It won't happen, and never will, because thats not how it works. Saying that America is to blame for all the wrongs is short sighted and biased, it ignores details and the equally as bad actions of other countries, yet America is singled out because of who it is - the greatest super power left.
I believe in nations which act, for the right reasons, to protect others, not those who critique and talk and believe in the impossible. Some people need a reality check.
~~Belldandy~~
> Belldandy:
>
> Would you consider your underlying philosophy to be based on / along
> the lines of Positivism?
Not really, but I don't really know too much about positivism. I dislike theories and arguments which criticise that which those same critics have no answer for themselves.
It's fine to say somethings wrong, but say how it could be done instead rather than just say "No!". I believe too many people have ideas which rely on the idea of some kind of perfect world full of equlaity, social justice, and free of poverty. It won't happen, and never will, because thats not how it works. Saying that America is to blame for all the wrongs is short sighted and biased, it ignores details and the equally as bad actions of other countries, yet America is singled out because of who it is - the greatest super power left.
I believe in nations which act, for the right reasons, to protect others, not those who critique and talk and believe in the impossible. Some people need a reality check.
~~Belldandy~~
Goatboy wrote:
> Captain America
> "Right, I know I said I wasn't posting but I shall once more
> shine my light of fantasticness upon your tiny little minds"
>
> Funniest thread ever.
You said yourself that I had not replied to Light because I had been proven wrong by light, you are wrong, and I replied for that reason.
Tiny little minds ? You said it not me.
~~Belldandy~~
> Captain America
> "Right, I know I said I wasn't posting but I shall once more
> shine my light of fantasticness upon your tiny little minds"
>
> Funniest thread ever.
You said yourself that I had not replied to Light because I had been proven wrong by light, you are wrong, and I replied for that reason.
Tiny little minds ? You said it not me.
~~Belldandy~~
SHEEPY wrote:
> You all type too much
Not me guv'nor, I just cut'n'paste from the CIA. To summarise: we try not to be evil, but we are.
> You all type too much
Not me guv'nor, I just cut'n'paste from the CIA. To summarise: we try not to be evil, but we are.
I don't.
You all type too much
Superb.
Captain America
"I'm not posting in this section anymore because my blinding voice of obvious truth smashes your puny ideas to little bits and I'm sick of being the lone voice of excellence amid so many idiot commie Saddam lovers"
Rest of Forum
"Waaaah Waaaah Waaaah. You got owned"
Captain America
"Right, I know I said I wasn't posting but I shall once more shine my light of fantasticness upon your tiny little minds"
Funniest thread ever.
Captain America
"I'm not posting in this section anymore because my blinding voice of obvious truth smashes your puny ideas to little bits and I'm sick of being the lone voice of excellence amid so many idiot commie Saddam lovers"
Rest of Forum
"Waaaah Waaaah Waaaah. You got owned"
Captain America
"Right, I know I said I wasn't posting but I shall once more shine my light of fantasticness upon your tiny little minds"
Funniest thread ever.
I'm sorry if I've got this a bit wrong, but did someone just say that the CIA action was justified because it was authorised by a President who was elected by a democracy, and therefore the action was supported by the populace at large?
What utter rubbish.
If Tonty Blair decided to kill every blue eyed baby born from today and Parliament so enacted it, then would that have the backing of the populace at large?
No.
If you step back from it all you can't help but feel like an utter hypocrite. We trumpet our right to kill terrorists and to make the world a safer place but what we are doing is little more than state terrorism. And "pre-emptive attacks" is such an empty way of saying "unprovoked aggression" don't you think?
What utter rubbish.
If Tonty Blair decided to kill every blue eyed baby born from today and Parliament so enacted it, then would that have the backing of the populace at large?
No.
If you step back from it all you can't help but feel like an utter hypocrite. We trumpet our right to kill terrorists and to make the world a safer place but what we are doing is little more than state terrorism. And "pre-emptive attacks" is such an empty way of saying "unprovoked aggression" don't you think?
Belldandy:
Would you consider your underlying philosophy to be based on / along the lines of Positivism?
Would you consider your underlying philosophy to be based on / along the lines of Positivism?
My head hurts, but nonetheless:
Belldandy wrote:
> Of course he wasn't part of a communist plot, Chile was the only non
> communist socialist country in the western hemisphere. He won an
> election on promises he could not keep, and that resulted in his
> unpopularity in the ruling classes.
So...What...Was...The...Justification...For...The...Coup?
> The coup was already forming before the CIA intervened, as I've said,
> and other sites/books will confirm, Allende's policies had a lot of
> unpopularity amongst those they would not benefit. The CIA was never
> implicated in the subsequent purges Pinochet ordered, and as such
> these were the actions of the man himself.
One such site presumably being http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ latin_america/chile.htm - an archive of declassified US files on Chile. A few choice quotes will suffice:
"In the 1960s and the early 1970s, as part of the US Government policy to try to influence events in Chile, CIA undertook specific covert action projects in Chile...The overwhelming objective was to discredit Marxist-leaning politicians, especially Dr Salvador Allende, and to strengthen and encourage their civilian and military opponents to prevent them from assuming power."
I'm shocked: those naughty spies feared a left-wing government and laid out plans to defeat one a full decade before Pinochet finished the job.
"On 15 September 1970 President Nixon informed the DCI that an Allende regime in Chile would not be acceptable to the United States. He instructed the CIA to prevent Allende from coming to power or unseat him and authorized $10 million for this purpose. The President specifically directed that this action be carried out by the CIA without advising the Departments of State or Defense or the US Ambassador in Chile...Between 5-20 October the Station orchestrated numerous contacts with key Chilean military Carabinero officers to *convince* them to carry out a coup. The US Embassy's Army Attache was placed under operational control of the CIA Station and relayed similar messages to his military contacts. Four officers were dispatched under non-official cover to meet with the most sensitive of these Chilean military officers who were directly involved in coup plotting."
Oh no! Not Richard Nixon too! He always seemed such a nice guy. Oh, and it turned out the CIA was in persuasive contact with FOUR groups of coup plotters in 1970, of varying degrees of hopelessness. Heck, if there was gonna be a coup those Langley boys wanted in on it.
"During a period between 1974 and 1977, CIA maintained contact with Manuel Contreras Sepulved [chief of the secret police]...The US Government policy community approved CIA's contact with Contreras, given his position as chief of the primary intelligence organization in Chile, as necessary to accomplish its mission...By April 1975, intelligence reporting showed that Contreras was the principal obstacle to a reasonable human rights policy within the Junta, but an interagency committee directed the CIA to continue its relationship with Contreras...On 3 November 1977, Contreras was transferred to a function unrelated to intelligence so CIA severed all contact with him."
The CIA consorting with political thugs? Giving them payments as they had those dirty socialists disappeared? Say it ain't so!
Who would write these terrible things? Let me check...OMFG!!!...it was the CIA themselves in their all-singin' all-dancin' report 'CIA Activities In Chile', released Sept. 19th 2000. But take care kids - this is just the radio edit: the CIA still has a mountain of stuff on Chile that it still won't declassify.
> Independence ? Don't make me laugh, Allende practiced Dependency
> Theory which was the product of Neo Marxists such as Paul Baran in
> America, and the Latin Dependency scholars in South America.
As I think you know, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
Belldandy wrote:
> Of course he wasn't part of a communist plot, Chile was the only non
> communist socialist country in the western hemisphere. He won an
> election on promises he could not keep, and that resulted in his
> unpopularity in the ruling classes.
So...What...Was...The...Justification...For...The...Coup?
> The coup was already forming before the CIA intervened, as I've said,
> and other sites/books will confirm, Allende's policies had a lot of
> unpopularity amongst those they would not benefit. The CIA was never
> implicated in the subsequent purges Pinochet ordered, and as such
> these were the actions of the man himself.
One such site presumably being http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ latin_america/chile.htm - an archive of declassified US files on Chile. A few choice quotes will suffice:
"In the 1960s and the early 1970s, as part of the US Government policy to try to influence events in Chile, CIA undertook specific covert action projects in Chile...The overwhelming objective was to discredit Marxist-leaning politicians, especially Dr Salvador Allende, and to strengthen and encourage their civilian and military opponents to prevent them from assuming power."
I'm shocked: those naughty spies feared a left-wing government and laid out plans to defeat one a full decade before Pinochet finished the job.
"On 15 September 1970 President Nixon informed the DCI that an Allende regime in Chile would not be acceptable to the United States. He instructed the CIA to prevent Allende from coming to power or unseat him and authorized $10 million for this purpose. The President specifically directed that this action be carried out by the CIA without advising the Departments of State or Defense or the US Ambassador in Chile...Between 5-20 October the Station orchestrated numerous contacts with key Chilean military Carabinero officers to *convince* them to carry out a coup. The US Embassy's Army Attache was placed under operational control of the CIA Station and relayed similar messages to his military contacts. Four officers were dispatched under non-official cover to meet with the most sensitive of these Chilean military officers who were directly involved in coup plotting."
Oh no! Not Richard Nixon too! He always seemed such a nice guy. Oh, and it turned out the CIA was in persuasive contact with FOUR groups of coup plotters in 1970, of varying degrees of hopelessness. Heck, if there was gonna be a coup those Langley boys wanted in on it.
"During a period between 1974 and 1977, CIA maintained contact with Manuel Contreras Sepulved [chief of the secret police]...The US Government policy community approved CIA's contact with Contreras, given his position as chief of the primary intelligence organization in Chile, as necessary to accomplish its mission...By April 1975, intelligence reporting showed that Contreras was the principal obstacle to a reasonable human rights policy within the Junta, but an interagency committee directed the CIA to continue its relationship with Contreras...On 3 November 1977, Contreras was transferred to a function unrelated to intelligence so CIA severed all contact with him."
The CIA consorting with political thugs? Giving them payments as they had those dirty socialists disappeared? Say it ain't so!
Who would write these terrible things? Let me check...OMFG!!!...it was the CIA themselves in their all-singin' all-dancin' report 'CIA Activities In Chile', released Sept. 19th 2000. But take care kids - this is just the radio edit: the CIA still has a mountain of stuff on Chile that it still won't declassify.
> Independence ? Don't make me laugh, Allende practiced Dependency
> Theory which was the product of Neo Marxists such as Paul Baran in
> America, and the Latin Dependency scholars in South America.
As I think you know, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
unknown kernel wrote:
> As far as I am aware neither the CIA nor the President was elected by
> the people of Chile. Allende was. His socialist state was chosen by
> the Chilean people, presumably because US neo-imperialism wasn't
> really working for them anymore. Allende wasn't part of some dark
> Communist plot, he wasn't about to replay Stalin's purges, he wasn't a
> dictator: he won an election.
Of course he wasn't part of a communist plot, Chile was the only non communist socialist country in the western hemisphere. He won an election on promises he could not keep, and that resulted in his unpopularity in the ruling classes.
> And this socialist state, which you have presumably deployed as a term
> of abuse, hoping that a small glint of Latin American independence
> will be tarred with the Soviet Union brush,
Independence ? Don't make me laugh, Allende practiced Dependency Theory which was the product of Neo Marxists such as Paul Baran in America, and the Latin Dependency scholars in South America. It wasn't true independence or a real third way, it was simply a socialist alternative to capitalism and nothing more. Dependency theory was also tried in other countries, and succeeded for only a few years before, with the exception (kind of) of Nigeria, being overturned by a cop or civil unrest of some kind. Socialist ideals are not evil, but they do require the state to have significant wealth behind it. Even back then, Chile was borrowing a lot of money from US and European banks, and Allende's ideals cost a lot of that money. The theories of Latin American dependency assumed that Latin America's own development had been blocked by the colonial powers, mostly Spain and Portugal in this case, an that had they not been subject to colonial rule in the past then Latin America would have developed along the lines of North America, Western Europe e.t.c. However, theories that followed dependency point to the fact that many Asian countries, who were similarly colonies, such as Taiwan, Singapore e.t.c. had rapidly developed without dependency and socialism. Which kind of makes the whole dependency thing a bit flawed.
> was it really so terrible?
> Health care? The right to join a union? Land reform? A bit of
> nationalisation - though less than our own post-war governments did -
> was it all so bad? Did it require the CIA to back and encourage a
> bloody coup and years of purges, thousands of disapperaed?
The coup was already forming before the CIA intervened, as I've said, and other sites/books will confirm, Allende's policies had a lot of unpopularity amongst those they would not benefit. The CIA was never implicated in the subsequent purges Pinochet ordered, and as such these were the actions of the man himself.
> "Great if you're Joe Public"? Wake up! You ARE Joe Public.
My point is it was only great if you were Joe Public with nothing to lose. If you had a good job, wealth e.t.c. then Allende's ideas were not going to be welcome - he was going to give to everyone what you had worked for. Allende basically threatened the position of the minority elites in Chile and thus stirred the first beginnings of a coup. Economically, Allende's ideas didn't work long term, and history has shown that those states with socialist ideals, such as Mozambique, met problems in the 1980's when SAP's (Structural Adjustment Programs) imposed because of their inability to pay back debt meant those states could no longer provide many services such as free health care. Problem was that these same states populace largely had been used to free services and had no provision for thier failure. NGO's filled the gap left by the state, and under the guise of humanitarian aid often undermined established governments. In a way it's simply a new form of colonialism.
And still no one answers those questions.....
> As far as I am aware neither the CIA nor the President was elected by
> the people of Chile. Allende was. His socialist state was chosen by
> the Chilean people, presumably because US neo-imperialism wasn't
> really working for them anymore. Allende wasn't part of some dark
> Communist plot, he wasn't about to replay Stalin's purges, he wasn't a
> dictator: he won an election.
Of course he wasn't part of a communist plot, Chile was the only non communist socialist country in the western hemisphere. He won an election on promises he could not keep, and that resulted in his unpopularity in the ruling classes.
> And this socialist state, which you have presumably deployed as a term
> of abuse, hoping that a small glint of Latin American independence
> will be tarred with the Soviet Union brush,
Independence ? Don't make me laugh, Allende practiced Dependency Theory which was the product of Neo Marxists such as Paul Baran in America, and the Latin Dependency scholars in South America. It wasn't true independence or a real third way, it was simply a socialist alternative to capitalism and nothing more. Dependency theory was also tried in other countries, and succeeded for only a few years before, with the exception (kind of) of Nigeria, being overturned by a cop or civil unrest of some kind. Socialist ideals are not evil, but they do require the state to have significant wealth behind it. Even back then, Chile was borrowing a lot of money from US and European banks, and Allende's ideals cost a lot of that money. The theories of Latin American dependency assumed that Latin America's own development had been blocked by the colonial powers, mostly Spain and Portugal in this case, an that had they not been subject to colonial rule in the past then Latin America would have developed along the lines of North America, Western Europe e.t.c. However, theories that followed dependency point to the fact that many Asian countries, who were similarly colonies, such as Taiwan, Singapore e.t.c. had rapidly developed without dependency and socialism. Which kind of makes the whole dependency thing a bit flawed.
> was it really so terrible?
> Health care? The right to join a union? Land reform? A bit of
> nationalisation - though less than our own post-war governments did -
> was it all so bad? Did it require the CIA to back and encourage a
> bloody coup and years of purges, thousands of disapperaed?
The coup was already forming before the CIA intervened, as I've said, and other sites/books will confirm, Allende's policies had a lot of unpopularity amongst those they would not benefit. The CIA was never implicated in the subsequent purges Pinochet ordered, and as such these were the actions of the man himself.
> "Great if you're Joe Public"? Wake up! You ARE Joe Public.
My point is it was only great if you were Joe Public with nothing to lose. If you had a good job, wealth e.t.c. then Allende's ideas were not going to be welcome - he was going to give to everyone what you had worked for. Allende basically threatened the position of the minority elites in Chile and thus stirred the first beginnings of a coup. Economically, Allende's ideas didn't work long term, and history has shown that those states with socialist ideals, such as Mozambique, met problems in the 1980's when SAP's (Structural Adjustment Programs) imposed because of their inability to pay back debt meant those states could no longer provide many services such as free health care. Problem was that these same states populace largely had been used to free services and had no provision for thier failure. NGO's filled the gap left by the state, and under the guise of humanitarian aid often undermined established governments. In a way it's simply a new form of colonialism.
And still no one answers those questions.....
Page: