The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
A few days ago, it was the ‘anniversary’ of September 11th. While all the mass media coverage blared on, about what was a horrific act of murder, and people swung to and fro in arguments and all that, the one thing that I fell has been neglected is why.
George Bush said it was because it was ‘Evil’ pure and simple. Evil that calculating does not and cannot exist in simple life. There is a purpose to everything. Yes, to kill people, but also to make a point. In that respect the attacks were a real waste. The point of trying to change America (which as far as I can tell is almost impossible) was lost under mass hysteria. Of course I’m not condoning the act, as it was horrific, but so many things got brushed under the proverbial carpet and they were perhaps the most important things.
Why was the USA attacked? Not one leading statesperson has made a mention of that. Of course, us underlings question it, but not en masse. The attacks also gave Bushy a chance to actually stay in office. Without it he would be a real mess. Surrounding himself in more intelligent people, he uses to speak cleverly worded speeches, while in fact he is quite inept at most simple things – he is in the pockets of corporations, and pretends to be a ‘good old boy’ of Texas. Sep 11th gave him and his office a chance to win over the rest of the USA in a flurry of patriotism that included mass flag waving and of course, the solution to all problems in that type of scenario war. Ah, but not a conventional war. A war on ‘terror’ -that is an oxymoron. War is terror. But that’s another point, for yet another discussion.
In Sep 8ths Times Magazine, there, amid all the hysteria is a very very interesting article by Norman Mailer the American author. He points out a lot of things. The one thing I want to use is US policy. Or more to the point, corporate policy. Capitalism. First the US pokes its nose into the terrible middle-east crisis – which is now under the carpet too after the peace process was annihilated by pointless anti-Islamic feeling. Meanwhile, all over the world, US companies control peoples economies, while in America the ‘Land of the Free’ people – get this – live in total differences. The richest people in the US earn 1000 times more than the poorest. Equality we’re told.
Although the attacks were terrible, and I completely condemn them, the US has not asked why in any serious way. Its brushed off as ‘terrorism’ (when terrorism is an odd term – of course the IRA won’t be crushed, neither Etta, nor many other paramilitary groups, that don’t ‘concern’ the US government) when in fact the US is not the 'protector' of liberty, but perhaps, scarily, the controller of it.
George Bush said it was because it was ‘Evil’ pure and simple. Evil that calculating does not and cannot exist in simple life. There is a purpose to everything. Yes, to kill people, but also to make a point. In that respect the attacks were a real waste. The point of trying to change America (which as far as I can tell is almost impossible) was lost under mass hysteria. Of course I’m not condoning the act, as it was horrific, but so many things got brushed under the proverbial carpet and they were perhaps the most important things.
Why was the USA attacked? Not one leading statesperson has made a mention of that. Of course, us underlings question it, but not en masse. The attacks also gave Bushy a chance to actually stay in office. Without it he would be a real mess. Surrounding himself in more intelligent people, he uses to speak cleverly worded speeches, while in fact he is quite inept at most simple things – he is in the pockets of corporations, and pretends to be a ‘good old boy’ of Texas. Sep 11th gave him and his office a chance to win over the rest of the USA in a flurry of patriotism that included mass flag waving and of course, the solution to all problems in that type of scenario war. Ah, but not a conventional war. A war on ‘terror’ -that is an oxymoron. War is terror. But that’s another point, for yet another discussion.
In Sep 8ths Times Magazine, there, amid all the hysteria is a very very interesting article by Norman Mailer the American author. He points out a lot of things. The one thing I want to use is US policy. Or more to the point, corporate policy. Capitalism. First the US pokes its nose into the terrible middle-east crisis – which is now under the carpet too after the peace process was annihilated by pointless anti-Islamic feeling. Meanwhile, all over the world, US companies control peoples economies, while in America the ‘Land of the Free’ people – get this – live in total differences. The richest people in the US earn 1000 times more than the poorest. Equality we’re told.
Although the attacks were terrible, and I completely condemn them, the US has not asked why in any serious way. Its brushed off as ‘terrorism’ (when terrorism is an odd term – of course the IRA won’t be crushed, neither Etta, nor many other paramilitary groups, that don’t ‘concern’ the US government) when in fact the US is not the 'protector' of liberty, but perhaps, scarily, the controller of it.
America makes little effort to paint itself anything, the environmentalists and anti capitalists do that themselves. America does claim to be the land of the free - and it is in many ways.
The West holds the Third World in debt because the Thrid World borrowed that money and wasted it, mainly, on large projects that never worked - like dams. That money was Western taxpayers money and any government will need a damn good reason to right off that money. If we wipe the slate clean then it'll be full again in 10 years. We cannot continue to endlessly throw money at the Third World, we need to help the people and not the governments - take Zambian Government, rejected US aid because food was GM (ignoring the fact Americans and ourselves have ate this stuff for years), all the time whilst it's people are dying. Yet the Government ministers are not short of food themselves and because its "american" aid the people in Zambia have been persuaded by propoganda that this was a good move. It wasn't, they're dying because of it and George Bush just found it harder to justify foreign food aid.
In the case of Alaska this would be a good move, reducing dependency on the Middle East for it, though Israel needs to remain important for the West. Lets face it, Alaska isn't massively inhabited and it isn't that developed, oil wells could change that and open it up more for investment.
Finally look at it like this;
it's because the West is a capitalist society that anyone can openly criticise government policies. This is a good thing no matter what they are criticising or how well they are doing. It keeps governments and the public in general on their toes (metaphorically !). Under communism or dictatorships there is no option of doing that. Speak too openly against the government (if you can call them that)and you better have suitcases packed...... Look at what Mugabe's doing right now with the white farmers. In a democracy you could not do that and face no public resistance and violence.
Where capitalism goe, democracy follows, eventually, and that's always for the better.
~~Belldandy~~
The West holds the Third World in debt because the Thrid World borrowed that money and wasted it, mainly, on large projects that never worked - like dams. That money was Western taxpayers money and any government will need a damn good reason to right off that money. If we wipe the slate clean then it'll be full again in 10 years. We cannot continue to endlessly throw money at the Third World, we need to help the people and not the governments - take Zambian Government, rejected US aid because food was GM (ignoring the fact Americans and ourselves have ate this stuff for years), all the time whilst it's people are dying. Yet the Government ministers are not short of food themselves and because its "american" aid the people in Zambia have been persuaded by propoganda that this was a good move. It wasn't, they're dying because of it and George Bush just found it harder to justify foreign food aid.
In the case of Alaska this would be a good move, reducing dependency on the Middle East for it, though Israel needs to remain important for the West. Lets face it, Alaska isn't massively inhabited and it isn't that developed, oil wells could change that and open it up more for investment.
Finally look at it like this;
it's because the West is a capitalist society that anyone can openly criticise government policies. This is a good thing no matter what they are criticising or how well they are doing. It keeps governments and the public in general on their toes (metaphorically !). Under communism or dictatorships there is no option of doing that. Speak too openly against the government (if you can call them that)and you better have suitcases packed...... Look at what Mugabe's doing right now with the white farmers. In a democracy you could not do that and face no public resistance and violence.
Where capitalism goe, democracy follows, eventually, and that's always for the better.
~~Belldandy~~
I know that we are not entirely exempt from blame - the West holds the third world in debt, American wants to poen up Alaska for oil, and the fact is America holds money over the environment, which really is quuite annoying, and almost unbelievable.
I know that Britain, and all the rest are not exactly perfect, but the way the USA paints itself and then infact is a hypocrite is very very infuriating.
I know that Britain, and all the rest are not exactly perfect, but the way the USA paints itself and then infact is a hypocrite is very very infuriating.
Yawn...this anti capitalist stuff is really boring yknow ?
The myth that the world's problems in terms of poverty, equality and economy lie at Corporate America's door are just that.
Third World countries and many in Europe, and elsewhere just love to blame other for their problems when the real problem lies with them for the most part.
Africa - beset by poverty, droughts, famine, under development in many areas. America's fault ? No. One of the main reasons for famine and drought is overpopulation and the lack of many African governments to take any interest in family planning and birth control. Whilst populations starve their own officials live lives unthinkably extravagant to many Africans. Whilst money for development is short, most nations maintain militia's and military units far in excess of what is needed for defence. In fact the majority are overly offensive. War doesn't seem to be much of a taboo in Africa and the constant rebellions and civil wars do little to encourage overseas investment. This instability is bad for any economy, and means the only companies you'll find in Africa are those that are there for resources of some value, like Oil and diamonds/gold. These corporations don't just sail into Africa and set up. They require government permission, and with little exception these governments want the corporations because of the money they offer. In short, the African governments could easily reject any Corporation, but they dont. In Africa the main problem are the governments themselves, who have a vested interest in blaming someone else for the poor situation the majority of Africans find themselves in, instead of themselves.
Land Of The Free ? It is, more so than Britain where we actually have the highest divide between rich and poor - higher than America - as well as there being more evidence for us changing to a way of life completely revolving around money, again more so than America. Racism and crime are also far higher here than in America, and whats more the American media know it, whilst our own media denies it.
In the Middle East America remains vital to the secuity of the whole region. Peace there will only come about with the Israelis and Palestinians talking to each other through diplomacy, and America is one of the few nations both sides trust (to varying degrees).
Capitalism. Yep, Britain too. Russia tried communism and we all saw where that went didn't we ? The idea that communism mean equality for all is wrong, it's everyone working for the same goal - and that can be in different ways. As for Capitalism destroying the environment, well communism did much worse. It's impossible to have a mobile technologically advanced society without heavy industry. As for resources, oil will, and still is, remain the strategic resource for the next 100 years at least. Lets stop pretending that our country, and all those who becry the US's policy with Kyoto e.t.c., doesn't need oil. We do.
Unfortunately we also need well priced oil, and that means we have to take action to secure oil reserves and supplies from those who would deny us that oil. I.e Iraq.
~~Belldandy~~
The myth that the world's problems in terms of poverty, equality and economy lie at Corporate America's door are just that.
Third World countries and many in Europe, and elsewhere just love to blame other for their problems when the real problem lies with them for the most part.
Africa - beset by poverty, droughts, famine, under development in many areas. America's fault ? No. One of the main reasons for famine and drought is overpopulation and the lack of many African governments to take any interest in family planning and birth control. Whilst populations starve their own officials live lives unthinkably extravagant to many Africans. Whilst money for development is short, most nations maintain militia's and military units far in excess of what is needed for defence. In fact the majority are overly offensive. War doesn't seem to be much of a taboo in Africa and the constant rebellions and civil wars do little to encourage overseas investment. This instability is bad for any economy, and means the only companies you'll find in Africa are those that are there for resources of some value, like Oil and diamonds/gold. These corporations don't just sail into Africa and set up. They require government permission, and with little exception these governments want the corporations because of the money they offer. In short, the African governments could easily reject any Corporation, but they dont. In Africa the main problem are the governments themselves, who have a vested interest in blaming someone else for the poor situation the majority of Africans find themselves in, instead of themselves.
Land Of The Free ? It is, more so than Britain where we actually have the highest divide between rich and poor - higher than America - as well as there being more evidence for us changing to a way of life completely revolving around money, again more so than America. Racism and crime are also far higher here than in America, and whats more the American media know it, whilst our own media denies it.
In the Middle East America remains vital to the secuity of the whole region. Peace there will only come about with the Israelis and Palestinians talking to each other through diplomacy, and America is one of the few nations both sides trust (to varying degrees).
Capitalism. Yep, Britain too. Russia tried communism and we all saw where that went didn't we ? The idea that communism mean equality for all is wrong, it's everyone working for the same goal - and that can be in different ways. As for Capitalism destroying the environment, well communism did much worse. It's impossible to have a mobile technologically advanced society without heavy industry. As for resources, oil will, and still is, remain the strategic resource for the next 100 years at least. Lets stop pretending that our country, and all those who becry the US's policy with Kyoto e.t.c., doesn't need oil. We do.
Unfortunately we also need well priced oil, and that means we have to take action to secure oil reserves and supplies from those who would deny us that oil. I.e Iraq.
~~Belldandy~~
Encapsulated my thoughts completely there, Cyclone.
A few days ago, it was the ‘anniversary’ of September 11th. While all the mass media coverage blared on, about what was a horrific act of murder, and people swung to and fro in arguments and all that, the one thing that I fell has been neglected is why.
George Bush said it was because it was ‘Evil’ pure and simple. Evil that calculating does not and cannot exist in simple life. There is a purpose to everything. Yes, to kill people, but also to make a point. In that respect the attacks were a real waste. The point of trying to change America (which as far as I can tell is almost impossible) was lost under mass hysteria. Of course I’m not condoning the act, as it was horrific, but so many things got brushed under the proverbial carpet and they were perhaps the most important things.
Why was the USA attacked? Not one leading statesperson has made a mention of that. Of course, us underlings question it, but not en masse. The attacks also gave Bushy a chance to actually stay in office. Without it he would be a real mess. Surrounding himself in more intelligent people, he uses to speak cleverly worded speeches, while in fact he is quite inept at most simple things – he is in the pockets of corporations, and pretends to be a ‘good old boy’ of Texas. Sep 11th gave him and his office a chance to win over the rest of the USA in a flurry of patriotism that included mass flag waving and of course, the solution to all problems in that type of scenario war. Ah, but not a conventional war. A war on ‘terror’ -that is an oxymoron. War is terror. But that’s another point, for yet another discussion.
In Sep 8ths Times Magazine, there, amid all the hysteria is a very very interesting article by Norman Mailer the American author. He points out a lot of things. The one thing I want to use is US policy. Or more to the point, corporate policy. Capitalism. First the US pokes its nose into the terrible middle-east crisis – which is now under the carpet too after the peace process was annihilated by pointless anti-Islamic feeling. Meanwhile, all over the world, US companies control peoples economies, while in America the ‘Land of the Free’ people – get this – live in total differences. The richest people in the US earn 1000 times more than the poorest. Equality we’re told.
Although the attacks were terrible, and I completely condemn them, the US has not asked why in any serious way. Its brushed off as ‘terrorism’ (when terrorism is an odd term – of course the IRA won’t be crushed, neither Etta, nor many other paramilitary groups, that don’t ‘concern’ the US government) when in fact the US is not the 'protector' of liberty, but perhaps, scarily, the controller of it.
George Bush said it was because it was ‘Evil’ pure and simple. Evil that calculating does not and cannot exist in simple life. There is a purpose to everything. Yes, to kill people, but also to make a point. In that respect the attacks were a real waste. The point of trying to change America (which as far as I can tell is almost impossible) was lost under mass hysteria. Of course I’m not condoning the act, as it was horrific, but so many things got brushed under the proverbial carpet and they were perhaps the most important things.
Why was the USA attacked? Not one leading statesperson has made a mention of that. Of course, us underlings question it, but not en masse. The attacks also gave Bushy a chance to actually stay in office. Without it he would be a real mess. Surrounding himself in more intelligent people, he uses to speak cleverly worded speeches, while in fact he is quite inept at most simple things – he is in the pockets of corporations, and pretends to be a ‘good old boy’ of Texas. Sep 11th gave him and his office a chance to win over the rest of the USA in a flurry of patriotism that included mass flag waving and of course, the solution to all problems in that type of scenario war. Ah, but not a conventional war. A war on ‘terror’ -that is an oxymoron. War is terror. But that’s another point, for yet another discussion.
In Sep 8ths Times Magazine, there, amid all the hysteria is a very very interesting article by Norman Mailer the American author. He points out a lot of things. The one thing I want to use is US policy. Or more to the point, corporate policy. Capitalism. First the US pokes its nose into the terrible middle-east crisis – which is now under the carpet too after the peace process was annihilated by pointless anti-Islamic feeling. Meanwhile, all over the world, US companies control peoples economies, while in America the ‘Land of the Free’ people – get this – live in total differences. The richest people in the US earn 1000 times more than the poorest. Equality we’re told.
Although the attacks were terrible, and I completely condemn them, the US has not asked why in any serious way. Its brushed off as ‘terrorism’ (when terrorism is an odd term – of course the IRA won’t be crushed, neither Etta, nor many other paramilitary groups, that don’t ‘concern’ the US government) when in fact the US is not the 'protector' of liberty, but perhaps, scarily, the controller of it.