not as long as we wave football and basketball
Yeah. Probably trying to organize it into a collective as we speak.
Originally written by Airman Doors, USAF:
As I understand this is Your work (quoted from the link Airman Doors, USAF earlier gave:
So, if I now understand correctly:
- Your work is to inform people, give them a opportunity to surrender, without beeing shot at/bombed etc. later by mistake.
In a rather safe way.
As I understand You are capable to give them instructions how to surrender etc.
That is a good work in a war, so let me take my hat off for You on this.
I have really wondered how US will at the same time attack Iraq and ask the army to turn against Saddam, the dictator. (Everyone that is presented in big pictures; Stalin, Mao, Saddam, Breschnev and a couple dozens more, are dictators to me, a very simplified view, but anyhow.)
If Your work is successful, it will no doubt save a lot of lives, mostly Iraqian lives.
So I hope You will be successful in Your work and ask forgivness for my earlier harsh words against You.
However, I am still critical to the reasons US will attack Iraq, if You do not mind my opinions.
So far the reasons have not been very convinceble.
But that is not a fault of the Army, I am critical to the policy of the US government of today.
But, as I wrote somewhere else, it can just be a sly bluff, a positive one, from Bush, cornering a dictator harder and harder.
But I doubt that this threat of war will come to an happy end.
Still, when the war begin, if it begin, I think the numbers of death will be very high.
But as You say, You and Your friends are risking Your butts, for saving as many lives as possible. I honour that.
I hope You do understand that I write this in my earnest, and this is not a fint that will turn to something else in the next post.
I just thought You were a trigger happy guy, but I see that I am mistaken. Your work is somehow, if I understood it right, a paralell to the Red cross work. In order to safe lives.
I do not know how to put it, but I think You and the others understand what I am trying to say.
Henry
To be honest, we’re not really 100% sold on those reasons either, yet.
Well,
- That’s a subjective and, frankly, highly dubious statement. In fact, it sounds like partisan nonsense. You’re telling me they’re more indoctrinated than Soviet citizens? North Korean citizens? German citizens circa 1935? Albanians under Hoxha, as already cited? How familiar are you with the level of indoctrination and propaganda in those nations? Not very, I’ll bet. On what objective basis do you make this claim?
I’ll say this much; I have often heard immigrants to the United States say how surprised they are at the freedom of thought and belief.
-
I’m not American, yet I disagree with you too, as do million of other non-Americans. If Americans disagreeing with your socialist opinions are doing so out of indoctrination, explain me and the millions of others who don’t agree with you but don’t salute the Stars and Stripes. Is it that we are indoctrinated as well? Do you think it is reasonably possible that EVERY single person who doesn’t buy into socialism is doing so out of indoctrination and ignorance?
-
Actually, Chumpsky, you are quite clearly saying that people are disagreeing with you because they’re stupid. Here are your words:
I don’t know how this can be interpreted any other way except “I am smarter than you people.” You’re saying here that the people disagreeing with you are disagreeing because they are “indoctrinated” - you reject the idea that they might have actually studied the issue and come to a different conclusion - and that while you have gained “clarity,” they are “Exhibiting misconceptions.” In other words, your argument is simply that you’re right because they’re wrong, and the reason they’re wrong is that they don’t know any better. A common term for someone who doesn’t know any better is “stupid.”
Sorry, but that’s a circular argument. “I am right because you are wrong” is nonsense. If you want to become truly enlightened, you should first accept the fact that very smart people can and will disagree with you not because they’re stupid or ignorant or “indoctrinated,” but because people often have different values and beliefs than you do, and sometimes they might even be right. Until you can accept and understand that, your arguments will remain indistinguishable from those of any ideologue or partisan hack.
spooje
Just to make myself clear:
However, I am still critical to the reasons US will attack Iraq, as a link in The War Against Terrorism.
So far the reasons have not been very convinceble.
That was what I meant.
Henry
Apology accepted, Henry. Now, as I said before, all I need is for Chumpsky to read that and give his apology for his comments and all will be right with the world. 
And I in turn will apologize for the “kiss every inch of my considerably wide ass” comment. That was rather rude of me.
I just wanted you to know that I’m not some brand new 18-year-old kid. I’ve been there and I’ve done that. Fair eough?
Hmmpff! I’m miffed that the invitation was extended to Chumpsky and not me! 
One comment:
I agree with several of Chumpsky’s points:
(a) taxpayer-supported education at all levels
(b) corporations should not be treated as if they were people, at least in one very particular aspect, namely, I do not believe that they should have the right to donate money to political campaigns.
© the US has done lots of Very Bad Things
…but I can’t stand Chumpsky’s patronizing attitude and overuse of hyperbole.
gobear: 
That is all.
Chumpsky,
Unless you are known as “Alan Maas,” outside this board, it would be wise to attribute most of this post to its rightful source, Alan Maas, himself.
I hate to do this to you bud, because I honestly like the passionate idealism with which you present your notions for a better world. But something about the way ‘your’ writing style changes from post to post led me to do a Google search on a ramdom part of the above referenced post, and sure enough, I found it here, Socialist Worker Online, almost word for word.
Compare and contrast.
You write:
**
Which is well and fine, however, I also find that, Maass, amazingly, agrees with you verbatim:
**
As I said, I’ve enjoyed reading many of your posts up to this point, but I can’t help but feel more than a bit disappointed by this discovery. Seems to me, that now I’ll never know what part of those posts was really you and your ideas, or simply Cut&Paste hack-jobs from other sources – I simply don’t care to pursue this exercise further anyway, the damege has been done. Not that it brings down the ideas per-se, but if what I wanted was to read those articles outside of these forums and the debate context they were presented in, I would have done so on my own.
But as it stands now, you’ve lost all credibilty in my eyes. And even if that means nothing to you, it means a whole lot to me.
I feel decieved.
Perhaps you would like to clarify this. I have studied a bit about the kibbutzim and the socialist tendencies in Israel, but this is the first time I have heard anybody claim that Israel is/was a socialist state.
Still waiting.
RedFury: Bravo on the leg work.
Whatever one may think of Chumpsky’s politics, plagarism is definately verboten here I would suppose. May I be the first to formally bring up the “b word” with regard to Chumpsky?
I see… So, you want me to say which is the best, the most ideal socialist system that has yet existed on Earth? Since Cuba is apparently NOT a working socialist system? Hmmm… what is the best? How about the Paris Commune? Or, the Russian Revolution circa 1917? Or, Russia in the 1960s? Or, the Chinese Revolution? Or the Vietnamese Revolution? Or Yugoslavia in the 1980’s?
Take your pick. I’ll stack any of these up against a capitalist state with a comparable historical development.
What, no response to the charge of outright plagiarism?
I suppose I must reply to this. Although, I must say, that for someone who claims to “honestly like the passionate idealism” I present, I find it odd that this is the first time you have chosen fit to post in any thread I have participated in. This is literally the FIRST thread you have ever posted in in which I have participated. I see that you couldn’t bother yourself to offer any support when I was being harangued by multiple posters, but you are very disconcerted by this example of “plagiarism.”
Anyway, regarding the plagiarism claim, I suggest that people read my entire post, and then read Maas’ essay, and decide for themselves if this is an example of plagiarism. If you really think that is plagiarism, well, we have different opinions on what constitutes plagiarism. What happens is this: I read a lot from varied sources, and when I come to a debate, I remember different bits and pieces from what I have read. I recalled some quotes from Marx, and did a search to track them down, and came to Maas’ essay. I took the quotes from Marx, and then wanted to say what Maas said in one paragraph, and wrote it. I honestly don’t know how you would say the same thing in much different words. If this constitutes a breach on my part, I apologize, and will reference such things in the future.
This is the lamest excuse for plagarism I’ve ever heard. What, you couldn’t even manage to change around the order of some of the words? I’m not buying that for a second.
Russian revolution circa 1917? What the fuck basis for comparison is that to anything? How the fuck can you hold a country in the middle of a revolution as any sort of example for the track record of socialism as a succesful control system?
The chinese revolution? Again, what the fuck are you talking about.
Then it’s back to russia again, this time the 60’s. So your idea of producing an example of working socialism requires you to pin down to certain dates only, and ignore any bits you’re not keen on?
Shit, I’ll stack that up against Canada, 2001, July 17, from 1.30pm to 7 o’clockish. I have no idea what the fuck was going on at that time, but I’m willing to take a blind wager that it was a fairer, better organised and more egalitarian country at the time than the examples you’re trying to use.
If someone quotes economic theory you refuse to argue that because you claim all economists are paid to produce propoganda. If we try to argue specifics you won’t put up a country to compare with. In short, why should I waste any further time trying to debate with you, as it’s clear you have no intention of actually trying to prove your point than by cutting and pasting other peoples rhetoric.
Well, as Cecil says, we don’t vote on the facts here. You have reproduced copyrighted material here word for word, without attribution. That’s plagiarism, bud.
Thanks for playing.