Inflammatory Comments Inside

I think you are right. The US does what is in their own interest because they can, not because it is right.

Sure there is something wrong with unchecked consumption, it is not sustainable. At some point the system will crack and implode. Perhaps just like Suddam's Iraq, which was equally unsustainable. Ofcourse the US as a country is a wee bit more resiliant than the facade of a country Iraq was trying to be with Saddam at the helm

IMO if countries of the world take unilateralism to heart, we are all ****ed. The only way the situation is going to improve is for everyone to work with the UN, it is still the only institution the world has that can do what it does. I don't think that it can do all this in its present form however (those veto powers really scew up everything) but it is something to work with.

But how does one reconcile this, the most basic of truths, with the near total support for state-capitalism, not just among CEOs, but among the genral populace? I mean, these are the people being screwed, all while giving the thumbs up to their screwers. Is it simply that enough people are doing well enough individually to overlook the more dramatic global outlook? That is, "I've got my HDTV, the rest of the world is not my problem." Aside from the obvious callousness, this fails to take into account the fact that we are a global society, and the world's problems are everyone's problems.

It may be a basic truth but that doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it. We can only judge by our actions. So uhhhh... fight the power!


Actually I think it is quite clear that drastic action, such as the invasion of Iraq would never have happened without the recent terrorist attacks in the US. Of course taking such pre-emptive active carries its own grave dangers.

What I meant, though, is that for the most part, the general populace does not see anything wrong with capitalistic exploitation. SOme of us do, and should rightly "fight the power," but why don't the rest of Americans?

As for the "drastic action" and its relation to 9-11, no doubt the spetember tragedy provides a convenient pre-text. Would a general U.S. push for power in the Middle East have happened anyway? We'll never know, but I suspect it would have at some point.

Aren't any of the pro-US posters going to jump in, or are we all agreed that US economic and political intervention in other nations is ignoble at best?

That is, is it morally right to "make the world safe for capitalism?"

I will tell you why. It is because most people are STUPID.


They don't know how the world works nor do they care. This wouldn't really bother me as much as it does if the US didn't have such a moron for a president, but what can you do?

I'll agree with you also about the inevitable US involvement in the middle east. The palastinian/isriel issue obviously had to be dealt with by the US, so that is one. The other is ofcourse the OIL issue. Most experts agree that in 20-30 years supply will peak. This means that after that time period, supply will decrease. This is a reality. Even with all the new tech coming out, the western world - hell the whole world will still need alot of oil. This requires stability in the region. I can only hope for those who live there that this will mean the proliferation of democratic societies rather than oppresive regimes.

I think promoting capitalism is fine. What angers me most is that the US thinks they have the monopoly on what are acceptable forms of democracy and capitalism. This more than anything I think is what breads the resentment and hate for them around the world.

Careful. I think this isn't so much about being stupid as it is about being lazy. Any adult is smart enough to recognize the basics here and put them together. It is exceedingly difficult, however, to do so because it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Oh, how I wish for a culture of skepticism.

Hehe I know that, I was just making a broad generalization

::applause::

The original post is so right on.

As for the discussion as to why no one talks about unsustainability, I offer a quote from George Monbiot:



I think "great heresy of our times" sums it up quite perfectly.

I think the title of this thread should be "FNG TRoll inside."

Insightful rebuttal as usual, finboy.

How do you find the time to correct the errors of other's assumptions in such detailed and informative ways without resorting to name-calling?

Oh wait, you never do that. Nevermind.

I'm confused.

Why is this trolling? I made what I think is a cogent arguement and asked for opinions, not because I want to bait people, but because I want to guage the level of consensus across the political spectrum of the beleif that unbridled capitalsim may in fact be ruining us. As I understand it, class cuts across party lines.

P.S. The use of the word "inflamatory" in the title was tongue in cheek, as there is nothing really inflamatory about recognizing power structures as they are, except to the helmsman of such structures. I doubt very much if anyone who posts here is a captain of industry.

There have plenty of decent discussions on this forum over the last couple of years. Some of which I have participated in. My rush to begin name-calling and deliberate slamming of content is directly proportional to the vapidity of the post.

I refuse to be baited into intelligent discussion of ridiculous theses. It's kind of like the frustration I feel with the "Holocaust never happened" bunch. Or the "moon shot hoax" bunch.

Do the folks who feel that the Holocaust is a myth get equal time. No chance. Nor should they -- their idea is obscene, offensive.

To me, the "American Imperialism" and "Capitalist Oppression" bunch are wonking the same sorta tune. They obviously don't get it, and short of outright ridicule they deserve no comment.

I fully agree with your assessment dgs212. I believe people don't want to think about what you have brought up. People can be extremely selfish and lazy.

Wait, what?

You're comparing my pointing out the plight of the third world at the hands of capitialism to people who don't believe in the holocaust? Because that's completely backwards. If anything, I would liken support for the exploited in other countries to those brave few Americans who caused a ruckus about the Germans prior to Pearl Harbor. You know, american jews, socialists, communists, etc.

So if you think some powerful capitalist interests have influenced the government to adopt exploitative policies regarding regions of the world you're the same as people who think the holocaust never happened???

Both are cynical conspiracy-type theories, requiring the suspension of logic, reason, and economic substance. So, yeah, in that sense they're about equal.

Are honestly saying that the US has never engaged in economic exploitation?

There's nothing conspiratorial about it, in the figurative shadowy-cabal sense. It's common sense. To assume that the dominant power structure would not seek to retain its power is to posit the existence of a fundamentally dysfunctional institution that wouldn't survive a week. Refute that.

Originally posted by finboy:
Here's an inconsistency for you: affirmative action. Lefties live ONE WAY and act another. They're in favor (it's in the platform) of affirmative action. But if you look at their personal behavior, they don't actually GO TO surgeons who were admitted and graduated med school due to the benefit of affirmative action. Same with attorneys -- when making the choice PERSONALLY, people choose the best they can afford.

As I point out in the thread in which this comment originally appeared. finboy has revealed himself to be a racist. According to him, no one who got a higher education thanks to affirmative action can be as talented as those who didn't.
Guess what? Affirmative action may get someone into a program, but they still have to get good grades to complete it. Unless, of course, they have a "good" family background (and lots of money), like a certain very mediocre student named George W. Bush.
How do you learn who did or did not get admitted to med school or law school through affirmative action, finboy? Doesn't say anything about that on their diploma, does it?
Oh, I forgot. You obviously draw your conclusion based on skin color.

Sweatshops are a fact, to give one small example. How do you suppose they got there? They're not indigenous elements of the third world, I can assure you. See, this is what I don't understand. How can you ignore the global exploitation of millions of people in the third world? I mean, we're talking about fellow human beings, not some aliens or insects. I mean, how does one willfully ignore the suffering of others? If you've never heard of sweatshops or been outside the US to see just how good we have it here, then by all means let me give you an education. Just say the word. I'd be more than happy to devote my time to winning a convert to the "It's bad to exploit others" school of thought, and I'm not being condescending. I would honestly do it, with glee. But if, on the other hand, you know full well that the third world has been destroyed by western intervention, and you don't care, well that's just sad. I feel for you. There is also, the third option of knowing about it but feeling overwhelmed by it. I can sympathize. It is overwhelming, but not hopeless. You can affect meaningful change.

How would I even know if my doctor or lawyer was admitted to college through affirmative action or because they aced the SAT?

Is that one of the plaques they have on the walls of their offices?

"This is to acknowledge that John Q. Whomever was admitted to Georgetown Law School because he's black despite his mediocre academic record......"

Yep. I look for that plcque and then I bolt for the door!

I usually only go to doctors or lawyers who were admitted to college for athletic scholarships.

I wouldn't throw around terms like "racist" quite so casually. Certianly affirmative action is controversial, and not without it's problems. ON that I can agree. However, it has given opportunities to millions who otherwise would have no chance to get their foot in the door, thanks to decades of senseless systemic racism. I'm not sure what that says about the millions of whites "hurt" by affirmative actions. If one were to look, though, at comparative economic levels in white and black populations in america, you'd certainly find poverty skewed to african american communities. If you can't agree that this is the result of system-wide racism (as opposed to individual racism), then I'm afraid you're advocating eugenics, i.e. blacks are poor because it's in their nature. Sickening.

Ah, being racist. Is there anything more pathetic?

I'm guessing that open-ended question is going to be too much to resist for some of the board denizens...

**** you, racebaiter. You don't know me, and if you'll read that quote closely, I say NOTHING about the folks who enter school on the basis of affirmative action or graduate after entering that way. I point out that I HAVE OBSERVED what you would call "socially conscious" people, all of my life, shunning the beneficiaries of affirmative action. I've seen it time and time again -- it's hypocritical behavior, and it hurts people. Folks should ACT as they proclaim themselves to think.

If you want to find flaws with what I say, that's one thing, but you can find them without putting words in my mouth and calling me a racist.

the UN has proven it has no backbone. and it does that really well

First of all, it isn't exactly news that a nation looks out of its national interests; that's constitutionally what most countries, and their leadership, are bound to do.

Now then, as for our policy for the 20th century, for a large of the time, we have been quite isolationist. For more than half of it, we have been fighting this:



(and yes, add three zero's to those numbers, as the chart indicates) ...and here is the corresponding article:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

It's often forgotten, with people in the rush to attack the US, exactly what others have been doing during their tenure in the world...

All of those deaths are somehow America's fault, or the fault of big corporate interests. Or the free market.

clearly

First, I would wager that, while it may not be news that the US looks out for its interests, it is news to many the means by which we do so.

Second, the national interest, as you describe it, is not the interest of the general population, but thoe who control the power structure. Ask Joe six-pack if he has any desire to exploit the third world. You'd have to be pathological to concede that. Personally I'm for democracy, and I would prefer to be consulted on issues of aggression in foreign nations on my behalf. We need to clearly demarcate the difference between american policy makers and the american public.

Finally, while it's true that so-called communist regimes have perpetrated their fair share of atrocities, that is no excuse. In fact, it lends ever greater support to the idea that government elites, communist or capitalist, will do whaever is necessary to maintain control. If you are suggesting that America, in combating the spread of communism, did not perpetrate some of the most viscious and vile acts of the century, then again I must respectfully disagree. Either way, it is irrelevant whether the indigenous pseudo-communist regimes in the listed countries commited atrocities, as American intervention in those countries was not motivated by righteous indignation but global economics.

You asked what our policy has been for the 20th century -- it would be hard to have an intelligent discussion about that without noting our struggle against communism.

As for "their fair share" of atrocities, I think you would be *very* hard pressed to attempt to prove that the US did anything at even remotely the level of those democides and oppressions.

I'd also note that the US is the world's largest giver of foreign aid governmentally speaking, and also the world's largest giver of private donations.

No nation is perfect, and the US is far from it -- but I do believe we've done more good for this world (intentionally or not) in the last century than any other nation I can name.

If you can think of a country that has done more for the world in the last century, I'd seriously love to hear it.

Another interesting side note is the case of Cambodia's Kmher Rouge, identified by the author of the above study as the deadliest regime, percentage-wise.

What the author neglects to detail is that Pol Pot's rise to power was the direct result of continued US agression in the region following the Vietnam war. American troops carried continual carpet-bombing raids from 1969-1973, successfully destroying the country side and plunging the population into abject poverty. The Cambodian leader Prince Sihanouk would not kowtow to American foregin policy and was deposed in a bloody coup. Guess who America supported as a successor? Yep, Pol Pot. The combination of what was initially populist support for his psuedo-communist public policy and American approval allowed Pol Pot to institute his terrible reign. In fact, he was supported for many years with military and economic aid before being denounced as a mass-murderer.

Similar cases can be made for the cited cases of Nicaragua and many others on that list.

Absolutely, dgs212. The Somoza regime in Nicaragua killed on the order of 10 times as many Nicaraguans as the partially Communist Sandinistas did.
And don't forget Guatemala, Chile, Indonesia, Argentina, etc., etc.
Not to mention our former "good buddy" Saddam. Although that wasn't an anti-Communist stance, but anti-Iran.
In all the shock and horror over Saddam's torture chambers, don't forget that the US government has for years trained torturers at the School of the Americas.
To go off on a slight tangent, here's a little quiz for you: What nation currently has the largest percentage of its population in prison?
Answer: the USA, Land of the "Free."

But where is that aid going? This is a crritical question. Primarily, aid goes to the Contras, the Israels, the Suhartos, the Saudis, the Bin ladens of the world. it is not enough to give aid. The aid must be given responsibly.

As far as countries tht have done more for the world, you can have your pick. No country's hands are spotless, granted. But most do not demand the high cost America imposes for its "liberation."

Also, you mentioned America as being relatively benign compared to communist nations. First of all, you cannot compare the actions of america alone with those of two dozen other countries collectively. Further, Phillipino casualties alone at the hands of American soldiers between 1899 and 1902 (3 years!) are conservatively estimated at 20,000 military and 300,000 civillians. Extrapolate that to the hundred+ armed conflicts perpetrated either directly by US troops or inderictly through US led or supported natives in the past hundred years, at home and abroad, and I think a pretty clear picture of America's aggression shines through.

Instead of continuing on your "bash the US" rant, how about answering the question with a specific country that you feel has done more for the world in the past century?

I seriously can't think of any; the only thing that comes close is countries that sit quietly inside their borders and do absolutely nothing -- but that isn't exactly helping the world, that's merely isolating yourself from it.

Moki, I respect you as a person (and especially as a programmer). I do think the US has done a lot of good in the world, but we have also done a lot of evil. And now it looks like we are prepared to do a great deal more evil, which saddens me.
I will argue that we haven't done nearly as much good as we think we have, though. The last time we had a major foreign-aid program that actually improved the world was the Marshall Plan right after World War II. In recent years, the amount of foreign aid in the US budget has been shrinking drastically, because we have no more "anti-Communist" regimes to prop up.
If we're such a force for good in the world, why the hell have we done absolutely nothing about the human tragedy in the Congo? Civil war and its concomitant starvation and disease have killed 3.3 million people there in the past decade, and the US has done nothing!
Why not? Oh, I dunno. Maybe because they're black and poor?

How does one shun the beneficiaries of affirmative action? How does one even identify them?
If you don't wish to be considered a racist, don't make statements that can only be interpreted as racist.

This is the unfortunate situation; if we do anything (such as liberate Iraq) people protest, and rail against the US for "interventionism" and "invading a sovereign nation".

Yet if we don't do something, they cry "Where were you? Why are you letting this happen?"

You can't have it both ways folks.

You could also just as easily argue "Where is the UN? Why are they letting what is going on in the Congo and Rwanda continue?"

Because they're black and poor?

I agree that what happened in the Phillipines over a century ago was utterly wrong. However, you cannot "extrapolate" that to confirm your view of "America's aggression"

With our military in the state it is in right now, we could invade, occupy, and dominate literally any country on the planet. We're not doing that.

I'd also caution you to note that many of the wars we've fought in were to stem the red tide of communism. It's easy to argue now, with the fall of the USSR, that it was pointless and bloody, but I personally believe that fighting those bloody wars caused the world to end up better than it would have had the kind of communism in the USSR, China, and other countries spread. Also keep the context in mind; the Cuban missile crisis is what fueled America's very real fears of communism coming to our shores.

I for one am glad we don't have a nation like DPRK on our doorstep to contend with.

Speaking of that, many of the wars we have fought were indeed good things. World War I. World War II. The Korean War (South Koreans of the right age group still thank us eternally), and ultimately, the demies of the USSR. Hell, it can be argued that we're even bringing China around (slowly), not through force, but through capitalism.

A good friend of mine is from China, and travels there on business on a regular basis; she says that the larger cities in China are quite capitalistic, and not that different from the US (if you stay out of the government's way).

In short, I believe that what we were fighting against, if spread, would have been far worse for America, and the world in general had we not fought it. Problem is, you're arguing against what did happen, and not what could have happened. I wonder if the kind of governments in China, USSR, and DPRK did spread, if you'd even be able to voice your opinion on the matter?

I was pointing out that we seem to pick and choose our causes. We only "do good" when our leaders think it will be to our (or rather, their) benefit.
And I agree that the UN should take action.

Man, that sums up 97% of the men who wear suits in this world. 99.9% of the women.

Just the one bit...talk to anyone who's over 40. Ask them, when they were growing up, how much longer the oil was supposed to last. According to what the experts in the 70's were saying, it should all be gone by now. But it's not. The truth is, we don't really know how much oil is left. No one does. Just finding it at all is a sort of scientific black art, and predicting how much is left with as little knowledge as we have is pretty much a guessing game. So don't come in here spouting about how things are "a reality." We just don't know.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't support different energy sources. If you've got a water-powered car I'm there. But I don't presume to make statements of fact in the absence of evidence.

--Josh

dodged the question, homie.

name a country.

we'll wait.

The question was:

Instead of continuing on your "bash the US" rant, how about answering the question with a specific country that you feel has done more for the world in the past century?

and you didn't come within a hundred miles of answering it.

I don't really have time to delineate the entire course of US foreign policy over the past century, I will, however, point out the points you are missing.

1. One can, in fact, "extrapolate" what happened in the Phillipines at the turn of the century, because it was not an isolated incident. This is my main point. It's hard to turn off that voice that says America is good because it's what we're taught from the day we're born, unless we happen to be born elsewhere. It's easier to name countries we haven't intervened in. The list is truly staggering. Some select few:

Hawaii
Cuba
Samoa
Phillipines
China
Phillipines (again)
Panama
Nicaragua
El Salvador
Mexico
Columbia
Guatemala
Mexico (again)
Mexico (yet again)

The scary thing about this list is that it only goes up to 1917, a good deal prior to the mounting communist hysteria (i could go on if you like). For stuff after world war 2, the list looks like this:

WORLD WAR II 1941-45
Fought Axis forces for three years; first nuclear war, against Japan.

GREECE 1947-49
Supports and directs extreme right in civil war.

PHILIPPINES 1948-54
CIA directs war against leftist Huk Rebellion.

PUERTO RICO 1950
Nationalist insurrection challenges American occupation; US command operation puts down rebellion.

KOREAN WAR 1950-53
Joins South Korea and other allies to fight China and North Korea.

IRAN 1953
CIA directs overthrow of elected left-leaning government, installs Shah.

GUATEMALA 1954
CIA directs exile invasion and overthrow of leftist government; military junta installed.

LEBANON 1958
US occupation ends under UN Observer Group.

VIETNAM WAR 1960-75
Fought South Vietnam rebels and North Vietnam forces; 1-2 million killed.

CUBA 1961
CIA-directed "Bay of Pigs" invasion.

LAOS 1962
Green Berets active in training, military buildup, support of rightist forces during guerrilla war.

PANAMA 1964
Control of Panama Canal Zone challenged; rioting against US forces.

INDONESIA 1965
Army coup assisted to an unknown degree by CIA; left-leaning elected government toppled; between 250,000 to 1,000,000 lives lost.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66
Troops invade during election as pre-emptive action against leftist rebellion or communist government.

GUATEMALA 1966-67
Command operation; Green Berets aid in combat against leftist rebels.

CAMBODIA 1969-75
War against leftist forces; intense bombing; up to 2 million killed.

OMAN 1970
US directs Iranian invasion in support of Omani government against Marxist "Dhufar rebellion."

LAOS 1971-73
US directs South Vietnamese invasion.

CHILE 1973
CIA-backed coup ousts elected leftist president; rightist dictator installed.

ANGOLA 1976-92
CIA assists South African-backed rebels.

EL SALVADOR 1981-92
Advisors aid government forces against leftist rebels.

NICARAGUA 1981-90
US directs guerrilla exile invasion ("Contra war") against revolutionary government; US forces plant mines.

LEBANON 1982-84
Marines help police negotiated evacuation of Palestine Liberation Organization; US forces combat Muslim and Syrian fighters in support of Christian government.

HONDURAS 1983-89
Military bases established for US-backed "Contra war" with Nicaragua.

GRENADA 1983-84
US troops topple pro-Cuban government.

LIBYA 1986
Air strikes against nationalist government with terrorist links.

BOLIVIA 1986
Operation Blast Furnace; US troops and Bolivian police face peasant resistance in cocaine-producing regions.

IRAN 1987-88
Intervention on side of Iraq in war against Iran.

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989
Troops restore order after civil unrest spurred by Hurricane Hugo.

PHILIPPINES 1989
Armed US aircraft support constitutional government against failed coup.

PANAMA 1989-90
Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 US soldiers; more than 2,000 people killed.

GULF WAR 1990-
Operation Desert Storm drives Iraq out of Kuwait; 200,000+ killed. No-fly zone ongoing; periodic bombing.

SOMALIA 1992-94
US-led United Nations occupation during civil war.

YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94
US troops in NATO operation to enforce sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro.

BOSNIA 1993-95
Operation Deny Flight patrols civil war no-fly zone; air combat, Serbs bombed.

HAITI 1994-96
Troops restore elected leftist president to office three years after coup.

CROATIA 1995
American and NATO forces attack Bosnian Serb airfields prior to Croatian offensive.

SUDAN 1998
Pharmaceutical factory with terrorist links bombed; retaliation for terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa.

AFGHANISTAN 1998
Bombing of Islamic fundamentalist military camps; retaliation for terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa.

YUGOSLAVIA 1999
US aircraft play the key role in heavy NATO air strikes against Serbian forces in Kosovo.

COLOMBIA 2000
Special Forces train anti-narcotics and anti-rebel battalions, supply combat aircraft.

MACEDONIA 2001
US forces in NATO's Operation Essential Harvest partially disarm Albanian rebels.

AFGHANISTAN 2001
In retaliation for terrorist attacks in US, forces attempt ouster of Afghanistan's Taliban government, attack bases linked to Islamic militant Osama bin Laden.

The point being, America is the number 1 modern aggressor.

Also, don't forget about the internal strife and persecuted citizens (blacks, the poor, socialists, women, immigrants, homosexuals, labor strikers, etc.) The groups were treated none too good, either.


2. We are, in fact, invading other countries, flexing our military muscle. Remember Iraq, i.e. yesterday?


3. If the spread of Soviet style totalitarian state-communism, then why the aggression against vietnam? nicaragua? cuba? guatemala? cambodia? the list goes on and on. These were peasant countries, whose only crimes were organizing poor citizens into viable independent communities in the face of US hegemony. Now, from the point of view of Industry, they represent catastrophe.

4. I'm not sure where you got your information, but the Cuban missle crisis was not the beginning of communist hysteria. Far from it. It may have been its peak, but we were terrified of communists as early as the 20s. The cuban missle crisis is interesting, though, because it represents the apogee of the general populace's ignorance regrding american aggression. What was the story there? Russia created a communist state in cuba, gave it nuclear missles, and told them to aim them at the US. Well, there are several things wrong with that official story. First of all, Russia had no hand in cuba until America cut of foreign aid. Why did America cut off aid to cuba. Well, after the grass roots populist movement there overthrew the us installed dictator Batista, Castro moved to set up a nationwide system of education, housing, and land distribution to landless peasants. The government there confiscated over a million acres of land from three american companies. America cut off aid, refusing to purchase sugar produced there. Russia picked up the slack. This is where americ gets worried. The cia funded and trained a thousand exiles to institute a regime change. Unfortunately, castro was immensely popular and the invading forces were thoroughly routed. Keep in mind that this all flies in the face ofTruman's "rule of law" a treaty signed by the US stipulating that "No state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatsoever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state." Also at this time there was a federal operation called COINTELPRO (counter intelligence program) which, aside from lovely domestic business involving the murder of a black panther leader organized by the FBI, is a stunning example of US Terrorism. They bombed hospitals. They bombed factories. they killed popular leaders. All in cuba, all unreported at the time. The declassified record is shocking. You can read a copy many places online if you're interested. etc. etc. This is getting long...I better stop here on cuba, although I highly suggest reading more baout cuba for a good general picture of american involvement outside its own borders in the post-war era.


5. Lastly, I urge you to be more skeptical of american governmental practices. You can learn a lot, but you have to ask the right questions.


6. One more thing. I don't hate america. Americans can be pretty darn goodwilled, charitable, friendly people. Powerfull americans, however, are a whole other story. Why would you stand up and defend these people who don't care about you? You owe them nothing.

Shoot, i forgot to name a country that's done more for the world than the US.

Unfortunately, a state, like a corporation, is not a moral entity. It can't be altruistic. No state has done more for the world than the US because no state has the capacity to do for the world. Do you want specific groups of impassioned caring citizens who do for others more than the US does? Italian nuns on missions in africs. Doctors without borders. Amnesty International. Human Rights Watch. C.A..R.E. Notice that none of these groups are state-run.

"6. One more thing. I don't hate america. Americans can be pretty darn goodwilled, charitable, friendly people. Powerfull americans, however, are a whole other story. Why would you stand up and defend these people who don't care about you? You owe them nothing."


"Powerful Americans"?

um. Here in America, anybody can become "powerful" if they desire.

If money is power, that is.

and what else is it?

There is no elite ruling-class in America - just average Americans that sought their dreams and ambitions.

You don't have to agree with them and you don't have to give them "power". You don't have to do anything at all. Other people will do it for you. While you complain about the 'powerful' folks holding you back. limiting your success.