What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- creolelicious, on 10/29/2007, -71/+216there's something that average people in the west need to understand: our wealth is ALWAYS predicated on the oppression and exploitation of some other country someplace else. What America is so ineptly doing in Iraq, France is doing (with slightly more savvy, it seems), in Africa. The real rebellion, if it ever comes, will have to come from the citizens of the first world on behalf of the citizens of the rest of the world.
- 7Mystery, on 10/30/2007, -24/+69I couldn’t agree with you more, man. Sad thing, when one mentions this kind of atrocities, morons (over 80% of any society) will automatically label you “biased” and “anti-this” and all kinds of ridiculous words.
- SignorDildo, on 10/30/2007, -11/+37True. And while the pharmaceutical companies offer all kinds of relief for the common cold, the only cure for apathy and hubris is education. But folk are lazy, they really do believe in super heroes, and would rather be TOLD what to think - all the while believing in "free will".
Such a waste.- defact0, on 10/30/2007, -3/+24That was pretty well put for a guy named SignorDildo.
- FortyCaliber, on 10/30/2007, -10/+4Well, if you're not with us... you're against us...
- nicholai, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1Because Bush said so?
- SignorDildo, on 10/30/2007, -11/+37True. And while the pharmaceutical companies offer all kinds of relief for the common cold, the only cure for apathy and hubris is education. But folk are lazy, they really do believe in super heroes, and would rather be TOLD what to think - all the while believing in "free will".
- jeffiek, on 10/30/2007, -34/+23Ok, lets see what you've really said. First "in the west" as if you aren't one if "them", but then follow it with "our wealth". So what is it? Did you get your wealth the same way "they" did? Next we have the famous absolute (in caps no less) "ALWAYS", as if people in the west aren't busy building, creating, inventing. Believe me there are plenty of people in the west that make an honest living.
Having supposedly established how horrible "those western people" are, you go on to imply America is getting wealth from Iraq. Notice I said IMPLY, you did not state it directly, you carefully guide the reader to that position. Considering the 100's of billions of dollars it has cost, America is hardly getting wealthy in Iraq.
I won't even dignify the next sentence with a response.
What have you really said? Nothing. But you've done it well. Many before you have used the same techniques, they're powerful. Deceptive, but powerful.- SignorDildo, on 10/30/2007, -10/+23American companies ARE getting wealthy from Iraq. Those companies pay taxes, employ people (who pay taxes), and those people purchase goods and services (that are taxed). We can, therefore, cut out the intermediate crap and say: America is getting wealthy out of Iraq. And, more to the point, America WILL get wealthy out of Iraq. Don't be naive: Iraq is an investment. A financial opportunity. War is a lucrative business and America is well aware of that (it might seem like the US administration is wasting billions on those poor ragheads, but you have to speculate to accumulate - and the Americanisation of the east will prove very profitable for corporate America in the long term.)
- thespudmall, on 10/30/2007, -23/+4First, we can barely get people from dieing, much less set up businesses.
Next, you have no room to speak, your name in signorDILDO!- SignorDildo, on 10/30/2007, -2/+8Why do you say these hurtful things?
- sefalese, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2and that was thespudmall with the moron's view, thanks spudmall!
DRINK TERPENTINE YOU ***** - jeffiek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4SOME American companies are getting wealthy. SOME does not constitute the entire country. The COUNTRY, you know, the PEOPLE that live there have had their hard earned money dumped down the tubes. The NET result is less wealth overall, in America and certainly in Iraq. But you don't get that do you? You fell hook, line, and sinker for creolelicious's line of propaganda.
That's what I was pointing out, the methods of deception used. As I said, those methods are powerful. Look at resulting Digg count. And this is supposed to be about CAR and the French!
- thespudmall, on 10/30/2007, -23/+4First, we can barely get people from dieing, much less set up businesses.
- expatcatalyst, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6Well said! I too am tired of American bashing.
- SignorDildo, on 10/30/2007, -10/+23American companies ARE getting wealthy from Iraq. Those companies pay taxes, employ people (who pay taxes), and those people purchase goods and services (that are taxed). We can, therefore, cut out the intermediate crap and say: America is getting wealthy out of Iraq. And, more to the point, America WILL get wealthy out of Iraq. Don't be naive: Iraq is an investment. A financial opportunity. War is a lucrative business and America is well aware of that (it might seem like the US administration is wasting billions on those poor ragheads, but you have to speculate to accumulate - and the Americanisation of the east will prove very profitable for corporate America in the long term.)
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -6/+29I think saying all the West's wealth has come from exploitation is over doing it. It is possible to get rich on mutual beneficial trade. That might not be always the case. I think the West is powerful due to technology and geography. That is why we exploit them rather than the other way round.
Why do you think we invaded them rather than the other way round?- JOEINDIAK, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0My SUV is technology. The oil is a Racket.
- kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Loki you want to sit here and ***** forget world history.
You want to ***** forget the last 600 years of ***** colonization?
Its not ***** secret that the wealthy nations of today exploited the hell out of other nations. Hell even Japan did this(the Ainu, and Okinawan(the okinawans invented karate to defend themselves and basically not take the Japanese ***** thus they are still alive as an ethnic group) While the Ainu were just ***** screwed).
- sensoukami, on 10/10/2007, -16/+37"our wealth is ALWAYS predicated on the oppression and exploitation of some other country"
That's a stupid and totally incaccurate statement.- JoesRevenge, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Its actually an ideal of Leninism. Exploitations of western capitalist countries are being exported to the third world countries. A spin off of Marxism. Whether or not it is the case is another story.
- theodenking, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Where else would it come from? One cannot just create wealth just like one cannot just create energy.
- mtekk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"One cannot just create wealth just like one cannot just create energy."
Well if you consider mass a form of energy them maybe, mass-energy conversion people. - cypherz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10See my comment below. Wealth is not a limited resource. Intellectual Property? Not related to material resources, just human creativity. Wealth is created by the effort and creativity of human beings. A lump is clay isn't worth anything at all until I dig it out of the ground and mold it into a pot or vase. Then it has acquired value - through human effort and creativity. There are many other examples of created wealth. Most wealth is created, not found.
- kurtergad87, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8If I built a machine that made my work twice as efficient, i would have created future wealth. Wealth can be seen as the productivity of your work, and if trade between states allows specialization and share of knowledge, it would be mutually beneficiary.
- kaelyiesta, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Wealth isn't a zero sum game. One creates wealth through effort.
Proof: civilization. Even accounting for the very poor conditions of many places, the wealth of this world has increased since the rise of man. We do not live in caves, we do not grunt and growl to communicate, we do not have an average life of 30 years.
Further proof: isolated civilizations. Many civilizations throughout the world rose in isolation from anyone else, at least for a time. Since they were essentially a closed system during that time, you can see that the system gains wealth on average.
Your assertion is wrong.- nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2You do nothing to explain the huge disparity of wealth become different countries. Why do we buy shirts at Target that are made by 8 year old Malaysian kids making $0.25 an hour? Do you think it is appropriate that more developed countries will act to enrich themselves at the expense of other less developed countries? Maybe you think the USA has risen to power over the past 60 years because we are genetically superior to the rest of the world.
Your comment on isolated civilizations is absolutely absurd. The most powerful empires in history became powerful through conquering and enslaving their neighbors and/or colonialism (which is just a milder form of enslavement). Inca, Egypt, Rome, France, England, USA, ... etc. Of course any country becomes more productive as population increases, but pick up any history book and you will not find any examples of an isolated culture creating great wealth.
what you have "proved" is that academically, over a period of time, wealth will tend to grow. that's fine, but it is a worthless observation that does not fit the fact pattern of wealth disparity in the world. - Fragowell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Wow dude. Really. You haven't a single relevant point in there. You just basically went on a laughable rant about how unfair the world is. Kaelyiesta was merely stating that the assumption that in order to accumulate welath, one must take it from someone else is unequivocally false. Economics isn't just some fluffy philosophical nonsense that everybody intuitively understands. It's a science. If you aren't familiar with a subject, please don't presume to be.
- nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2You do nothing to explain the huge disparity of wealth become different countries. Why do we buy shirts at Target that are made by 8 year old Malaysian kids making $0.25 an hour? Do you think it is appropriate that more developed countries will act to enrich themselves at the expense of other less developed countries? Maybe you think the USA has risen to power over the past 60 years because we are genetically superior to the rest of the world.
- Asianwaste, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Where else would it come from? I dunno... COMMERCE? INDUSTRY? AGRICULTURE? TAXES? MINING?
- avengingturnip, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Then how can there be such a thing as a value added tax? Reduce it to its simplest components and all economic activity is simply the bartering of goods produced from limited resources by limited labor. Theories of money and credit, market efficiencies, and pricing mechanisms overlay those fundamental activities. Wealth is created by the application of capital in the production of things that people want. It is not more complicated than that.
- mtekk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"One cannot just create wealth just like one cannot just create energy."
- cypherz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24While there is much injustice in the world, your explanation for the creation of wealth by exploitation is just plain wrong. Yes, western countries are exploiting people all over the world. I don't disagree with that. What I'm disagreeing with is the the idea, implicit in your comment, that wealth is a limited thing. Resources are limited. Wealth is not limited. Wealth is created by the work and creativity of human beings. All wealth is not derived from resources (unless you consider people themselves to be a limited resource). One example of non-resource related wealth is Intellectual Property, which is independent of material resources. There are many other examples. This whole idea of wealth = resources is incorrect and is the source of the biggest error in communism as taught by Marx.
- doubledowndan, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1"our wealth is ALWAYS predicated on the oppression and exploitation of some other country" - and always has been. Exploitation has been the most prolific means towards socio-economic development since man became social. The haves always exploit the have nots, and this is the empirical root of most of the world's problems for all time.
- nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I don't know why this is getting dugg down. Anthropologists have found that even very ancient culture at the very beginning of civilization (think barely walking upright) sought to enslave other humans.
maybe this is an inherent characteristic of the human race? Certainly does not make it more tolerable. maybe we need to evolve.
- nihilite, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I don't know why this is getting dugg down. Anthropologists have found that even very ancient culture at the very beginning of civilization (think barely walking upright) sought to enslave other humans.
- avengingturnip, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Actually, whatever wealth I have is due to very hard work both in acquiring an education and much self-sacrifice after wards. Most wealth in a society is due to legal structures and private property which allow people to better themselves without having to worry that every bit of their effort will be stolen from them.
- doubledowndan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Collective wealth is more what I was referring to. Whatever wealth you have personally was allowed for you in terms of opportunity by your society. The options for the average American, for example, yield higher rewards (personal wealth for example) than those of the average Mexican. This is due in some part to exploitation at a higher level of the Mexican people. Other forms of exploitation that led to your opportunities included slavery, monetary control, and direct occupation/war to control natural resources. Over time these add up to a gap between nations and their people.
- heinousjay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That leads to a very important question: is it not the Mexican people's impetus to improve their own conditions? Humans can only be exploited if they allow themselves to be. That has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout history. Certainly there is a moral wrong in exploiting, but I have little sympathy for anyone who won't stand up for themselves.
And yes, it is sometimes a hard choice - a person may have to give up his life for the cause. If he's not willing to do that to better his chances, his children's chances, his societies chances, why should I be willing to help him?
Substitute any people for Mexican - I was just using the parent's example.
- heinousjay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That leads to a very important question: is it not the Mexican people's impetus to improve their own conditions? Humans can only be exploited if they allow themselves to be. That has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout history. Certainly there is a moral wrong in exploiting, but I have little sympathy for anyone who won't stand up for themselves.
- ciaran036, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You might've worked hard, but you still had lots of help and support along the way. Money was thrown at you as you grew up .
- doubledowndan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Collective wealth is more what I was referring to. Whatever wealth you have personally was allowed for you in terms of opportunity by your society. The options for the average American, for example, yield higher rewards (personal wealth for example) than those of the average Mexican. This is due in some part to exploitation at a higher level of the Mexican people. Other forms of exploitation that led to your opportunities included slavery, monetary control, and direct occupation/war to control natural resources. Over time these add up to a gap between nations and their people.
- ramiro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20That is complete BS. Getting wealth is not a zero-sum game.
- Detritus, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1You clearly don't understand what zero-sum game means. If there are a finite amount of resources/finite time = finite sum. If I get $100, someone else is out $100. If I gain a good or service that requires 5 hours to do, someone else is out 5 hours. That is what zero-sum means, and that is exactly what capitalism is.
- postaldave, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4sorry, you are the one that cleary doesn't understand.
the USA does not need the money from some ***** 3rd world country. wealth is made not taken. - tim620, on 10/13/2007, -1/+2@postaldave,
The USA was created, and Europe became colonialization empires, by taking money (gold and other jewels) from multiple "***** 3rd world countries" (as you state it). If we fast-forward to today, you would see that there are many goods made in Chinese (and other nations) sweat shops where the employees make no, or little, money. So, thanks to many multinational companies based in the USA (including Walmart), wealth is indeed taken. Also, I doubt the miners trapped in the gold mine in South Africa recently where mining the gold for South Africa.
Much of your income personal was likely "made" by your employer paying you. But much of the income in the West (as a whole) is (or has been) indeed taken, whether through colonialism or multinational corporations. - irvman21, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4No offense, but you are clearly a moron. Wealth creation is not a game of blackjack where one side wins and another loses.
- postaldave, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4sorry, you are the one that cleary doesn't understand.
- Detritus, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1You clearly don't understand what zero-sum game means. If there are a finite amount of resources/finite time = finite sum. If I get $100, someone else is out $100. If I gain a good or service that requires 5 hours to do, someone else is out 5 hours. That is what zero-sum means, and that is exactly what capitalism is.
- marc6hd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18That is utter Marxist bullsh*t.
http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html - LooseCannon1, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20Let me see if I can't make it any clearer: YOU ARE A ***** MORON. Bill Gates created his wealth from the third world? They don't even OWN computers and somehow we're to blame for our innovations??
Our wealth is not predicated on taking something from someone else, it's predicated on opportunity, necessity and and our own resources. On the contrary we have GIVEN more to the third world then they have ever given us.
Your comment is Marxism, pure and simple. It has proved to be a failing idealogical theory time and time again.
My God, the things people post on the internet and how ignorant people have become!- CaptainJapan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Obviously. Hey, what country made the components for Bill Gate's computers, and how much were the workers paid?
- irvman21, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Gates' company does not manufacture computers, it writes software, you nimrod, and his workers are very well paid.
- irvman21, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Gates' company does not manufacture computers, it writes software, you nimrod, and his workers are very well paid.
- CaptainJapan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0If computers were not made and packaged etc. than Bill Gates' software business would be essentially worthless. The success of Microsoft depends on the widespread ownership of computers, and third world countries are involved in various stages of production. Mr. Gates, like most people in the developed world, is indirectly involved in some form of exploitation. Companies must keep prices low to stay competitive, and one way of doing this is to lower the labor costs. Many companies export their labor to an economy that has a wage standard lower than in America. You could have also mentioned my incorrect placement on the apostrophe in "Gate's" but, like your other comment, it fails to challenge my point, substitute Steve Jobs for Bill Gates and my point still stands. The fact is that Marx and other Communist Philosophers have offered many accurate criticisms of capitalism; however,r they have also failed to offer a viable economic system that is superior. "Capitalism, like democracy IS the best system, that doesn't work."
- bromac, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Gates also has an opportunity to market his product to people that have enough cash to pay for $300 (the amount that puts you in the top 1%) for what is essentially information and air. Without this collective wealth, his opportunities would never had existed. So yes, indirectly, Bill Gates did create at least a portion of his wealth from the third world.
That and I'm guessing some of their products are packaged, printed or manufactured by people whose wages don't allow them to to buy those very products. Just because it's coded in America doesn't mean a global organization like Microsoft has all or even most of its operations there. Ever tried to activate Windows over the phone and you'll see.
- NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You can thank the Marxists in the US schooling cartel for the economic ignorance you see all around you.
-jcr
- CaptainJapan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Obviously. Hey, what country made the components for Bill Gate's computers, and how much were the workers paid?
- Herostratos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5As a matter of fact, most countries doesn't earn anything from imperialism. They didn't before and they don't now; just look at the huge expenses associated with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It does, however, benefit a select few influential pressure groups - e. g. Blackwater.- kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1...........
Yes please ignore history and ignore what colonization has done to the world, and ignore how today's wealthy nations gained that wealth.
The US did it, Almost every single European country has done it through colonization.
Now you have neo colonization.
This is nothing new yet you want to ignore and forget this history in order to hide behind something.
***** you,.
- kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1...........
- themastersb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I knew the French were up to no good. I just KNEW it!
- NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"there's something that average people in the west need to understand: our wealth is ALWAYS predicated on the oppression and exploitation of some other country someplace else."
I know it will be very difficult for an orthodox marxist like you to understand this, but the statement above is unmitigated *****. Most wealth is gained by domestic production and trade with other industrialized countries.
-jcr
- 7Mystery, on 10/30/2007, -24/+69I couldn’t agree with you more, man. Sad thing, when one mentions this kind of atrocities, morons (over 80% of any society) will automatically label you “biased” and “anti-this” and all kinds of ridiculous words.
- pintomp3, on 10/24/2007, -14/+217france, england, and spain have a long history of brutal colonization, this should come as no surprise.
- wisam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29Add to them Portugal and Netherlands (before Britain and France entered the game)
- kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Dutch were brutal assholes...
Japan saw the West's might and wanted to do ***** like that. XD
- kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Dutch were brutal assholes...
- Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21Well yeah, but most people thought we had stopped killing in Africa a long time ago.
- Nudar, on 10/10/2007, -26/+13It takes two to tango. Don't put all the blame on the West.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -7/+30it doesn't make sense to blame the victim of aggression. the south african's didn't ask the dutch to come and take over their country. the palestinians didn't ask the british to expel them from their homes. the indians didn't ask the british to rule and enslave them. the chinise didn't ask the british to go to war with them when they tried to stop british opium imports.
- barkingmoonbat, on 10/10/2007, -22/+7Before the British arrived, the Indians (Hindus) had been slaughtered by the invading Muslims to the tune of 40-120 million dead bodies. The British nicely did away with it.
- lasermic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Do you even have a source to back up this ridicuolus claim? Hindus were treated fairly under Mughul rule as far as I know.
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7But you'll notice they only settled in areas that their agricultural technology could cope with.
- Crimsoneer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Its pretty blatant apparent you've never been to India or Egypt. I live in Egypt, and I can tell you that easily 25% of the population misses the British enormously. There were civil rights, and a relatively non corrupt system, now, you have a right mess.
- barkingmoonbat, on 10/10/2007, -22/+7Before the British arrived, the Indians (Hindus) had been slaughtered by the invading Muslims to the tune of 40-120 million dead bodies. The British nicely did away with it.
- monkeyrun, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Yes as we all know if African societies were more developed when they were "discovered" they would not be exported as slaves.
I blame them for being under-developed !!!! - colouredCoder, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Are you therefore saying that the people been oppressed are to blame for the injustice been imposed on them by foreign forces? That's Crazy Talk!
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -7/+30it doesn't make sense to blame the victim of aggression. the south african's didn't ask the dutch to come and take over their country. the palestinians didn't ask the british to expel them from their homes. the indians didn't ask the british to rule and enslave them. the chinise didn't ask the british to go to war with them when they tried to stop british opium imports.
- Memnochxx, on 10/10/2007, -5/+23Yeah, let's blame the Africans for being attacked!
- theodenking, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5A history we have tried to put behind us.
- wayback09, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4You cannot forget that Europeans massacred millions of innocent people over hundreds of years.
- moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1We don't have to dwell on it, either.
- tim620, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Refusing to "dwell on it" has made people forget or not care about it.
- wayback09, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4You cannot forget that Europeans massacred millions of innocent people over hundreds of years.
- razishaban, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7What about the US?
- wayback09, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Lots of the problems in the world today are the result of European Colonialism. It's true, it's true! If euroweenies take pride in history, why is this the part of history they always forget to mention? They terrorized millions of people, in many different parts of the world. Yet when it's brought up, they all say, "but but but... we have healthcare!" they simply cannot answer for it.
- orca94, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And Belgium? They were the ones responsible for the events that led to the Rwandan genocide.
- MakiNavaja, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4It's funny that the people lining up to rip Europeans' dastardly colonialism are WHITE... and AMERICAN, for *****'s sake. Is there anything that drips with more irony??
- orca94, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually I'm Hispanic, and a majority of instabilities, inequities and such in the world today undoubtedly stem from Europeans ***** around throughout history. The U.S. is trying really hard to catch up, but they still need a few centuries to come close to the collective ass ***** Europe gave the world.
- wisam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29Add to them Portugal and Netherlands (before Britain and France entered the game)
- tehbored, on 10/10/2007, -6/+120Holy *****. Is this for real? I mean, it seems different when a developed western nation like France does it (as opposed to Sudan). I guess everyone thought this kind of stuff ended half a century ago.
- acrodev, on 10/10/2007, -2/+34As if exploitation will ever end.
- W00DR0W, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Well we did the same thing. We backed brutal despots like Saddam and Noriega who would look after their interests and not the people's interests (Making it cheap for U.S. companies to abuse the country's resources as long as they paid the guy at the top, and only him). Of course since they were all psychopaths we ended up getting screwed in the end too.
- nycmac247, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12George Bush doesn't care about black people.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Don't think he cares about many people.
- tim620, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yeah, he doesn't care about blacks, thats why he had the most racially diverse cabinet of any other president. Liking Africans might be a different story.
- SlimFastForYou, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Who cares about the cabinet's color when the administration is as criminal as it is? That's like voting for Hilary or Obama over Ron Paul because they aren't old white men. Seeing as though George Bush wouldn't have become President if it weren't for all the disenfranchised black voters in Florida, yeah, I think it's fair to say that he doesn't care about the black community.
- ciaran036, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4far from it, read up on 'neo-colonialism'. It shocked me into studying it for an extra year at school. The British went and killed 2 million in Africa at the start of the century and enslaved millions more. Back then, Britain's only mission was to go to other countries, steal and exploit resources (they also saw the locals as resources) and make themselves very rich and powerful. They also came to N.Ireland and did almost exactly the same thing, only we were a little more developed and able to fight back. Hitler was far from the most evil person of the last century.
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -7/+87Of course it is ongoing, it's no secret - people just don't want to spend too much time thinking about it. Perhaps it is a human condition. We hear of disasters in Sudan but do nothing then we read stories about the World Bank actually impoverishing Congo and selling land from under the native inhabitant's feet. Everybody remembers Somalia because Hollywood made a film about it - they forgot to mention it was only one warlord out of many they went after and oh yeah, Somalia has oil. You can put the rest together yourself.
And then Simon Mann was arrested, he runs a company for mercenaries called Sandline International - it has a vary good reputation and operates out of the UK. Are you really going to allow yourself to believe that British Intelligence doesn't know what Sandline is up to? Simon Mann was arrested in Africa with a small army of mercenaries set for Equatorial Guinea to alleviate their little 'dictator' problem. Then there is Eritrea, Algiera, Egypt - the list goes on and has been going on for decades. America are in the last stages in the creation of 'Africom'. A United Combat Command of the United States Department of Defense for Africa. Think about that: an American military command of Africa. Which American state is African again?
It's not just France that is fighting a war in Africa, we're all involved. If it's not bullets being fired then Africans are being subjugated to globalization. Put into debt and made to work for a serf's pittence to provide the West with spoils. Where do you think your candy comes from? It's either the Big Rock Candy Mountain or Cocoa farms in West Africa where children are abuducted, deprived of family and education to be put to work in the fields.- graemee, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3Mythical
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4OK why do you think the West exploits them rather than them exploiting us?
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4That's just it to some people. Blinkered. Polarised. Black and white - we either exploit them or they exploit us. But much as that rationale eases our conscience the callous reality is that for as much as we pride ourselves on having a free market we do not. Heavy subsidies, heavy debts lie testimony to the fact that a free market does not exist and that the poor are kept poor to provide labour and resource to the developed world.
Nor am I a prophet of doom. 50 years ago conservationism was a new fad - now we are all aware of carbon credits, recycling, environmental culture. It is essentially learning that we must put back what we take out. If we can learn the same lesson regarding economics and community and put it effectively into action then globalism and externalising costs (and jobs!) - then the profit to be had in global imperialism and instigating regime change would cease to be. Remove subsidy, forming a true free market, and remove corporate personhood and not only would the developing world not be held in perpetual poverty corporations would not be allowed to take advantage of them without reprisal. Not only would the domestic market be more stable and each country independent in its own right - those that would look to take advantage could be held accountable.
If you do not oppress people, nor threaten them but enable them to look after their own, and through trade empower them, then there is no need to see the polarized argument. If you're not attacking them but are working with them then exploitation or threat to national security would not be an issue. Regional dictators like Mugabe would also find it harder to hold onto power if the people knew there was something better in the offing which was theirs for the taking; independence, freedom from oppression and opportunity. There is no need for either side to exploit the other and it is perfectly obtainable. This is not us versus them. We just need another cultural awakening like we had 50 years ago with conservation.- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You're making a moral pitch to be good. I'm not doubting the sentiment. But I am still asking the question. Why did Europeans invade the rest of the world and not they other way round?
And then after that question why have some countries risen, like Japan, China, Taiwan, South Korea and other countries remained poor.
I am well aware that fair trade is preferable. But the world does not operate by oughts. Fair trade will not occur unless the sides are equal. - Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3And I answered. Profit and an ability to exploit. You don't need to return to factory settings - to hand over your wealth to those poor to progress. And if you listen to the poor countries they are not asking for it. What they are asking for us to drop our subsidies to allow them to compete.
We are on the inside of the track with a fierce headstart. Allowing them to draw level does not require a cash handout. It requires us to do the principled action (not moral) to say we will buy 'x' product from whoever wants to sell it. Not that we will but 'x' product and here is a massive subsidy to the local farmer who grows it so the guy from a poor country can't give a competitive price and make a profit at the same time. Of course this means that local farmers with western overheads could not compete but then again more markets would be opened up to them by the world's resources would being more effectively used. But at the moment the profit is being had by corporation without any net gains by the vast majority of the people - American or otherwise.
Imperialism has seen America and the UK, with some of her commonwealth buddies, invade Iraq and there have been massive profits made. By oil companies, construction and engineering companies, by the arms complex. Yet in doing so the allies and the Iraqis have paid the cost. America is straddled with record debts, the profits have not been passed onto them, and Iraq has been raped of resource and occupied, millions displaced or killed. You can see it as polarized if you wish but the ones profiting are not the ones that put the governments in power. One cultural change and one legal change (corporate personhood removed) and all that disappears.
There is no need to argue that it is the nature of the human beast to oppress or be oppressed because those doing the oppressing are not the people but corporation, corporation afforded with personhood it should not have. If corporate personhood did not exist then big business would realise it could not get away with fuelling war, lying to the people or laying claim to foreign resource. We wouldn't be occupying Iraq and ratcheting up regime change in Africa. - LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Hmmn not sure if the removal of corporate personhood would solve the issue of capitalist exploitation. I think they'd just mutate some laws to find some other method. I don't think a slight technical change in the law would really reverse all that.
The operations of the World Bank and WTO are deeply suspicious though. The theory that free trade benefits everyone is probably discredited as it relies on something close to equal power to start with. So poor countries need protectionism.
I'd still argue that "profit and an ability to exploit" does not explain why the South Koreans, Chinese, Japanese have managed to build up they're countries.
I would suggest a technological solution to the harsh environments in poor countries. They need Vaccines and cheap effective drugs against these diseases of the area. That might help a lot. I understand that mosquito netting is being distributed too. In 30 years time this might have helped a lot more than. Legal changes in the west.
Well thats my theory. In the long run I just don't think any ethnic group has moral difference.
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You're making a moral pitch to be good. I'm not doubting the sentiment. But I am still asking the question. Why did Europeans invade the rest of the world and not they other way round?
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4That's just it to some people. Blinkered. Polarised. Black and white - we either exploit them or they exploit us. But much as that rationale eases our conscience the callous reality is that for as much as we pride ourselves on having a free market we do not. Heavy subsidies, heavy debts lie testimony to the fact that a free market does not exist and that the poor are kept poor to provide labour and resource to the developed world.
- ButSeriouslyNow, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The US DoD has a combat command for Europe (EUCOM), South America (SOUTHCOM), Asia (PACCOM), and the Middle East(CENTCOM). This has absolutely nothing to do with claims to these places, it is a logistical entity designed to command operations should they take place in these parts of the world. More operations are taking place in Africa, so the DoD established a command center to coordinate these operations. Just because it is called "command" does NOT mean the US is laying a claim to any of these places. Check the Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Combatant_Com ...- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3And guess what - they shouldn't be there either!
Why are thousands of soldiers based in East Europe? Why demonize people like Chavez and fund uprisings, if Venezuela wants to nationalise its oil - good for Venezuela. The war on drugs is the most expensive farce but it is on the back of that that South American crops are sprayed indiscriminately in Columbia. Tune into the reality that the world's resources are not there to be pilfered and squandered, stop selling debt overseas and live up to ones responsibilities rather than passing the debt to the next generation and the pacific rim countries will look after themselves. You won't need to worry about whether China will seize Taiwan or not, the nest egg of US debt. I needn't go into explaining the middle east. Hopefully the ***** and balls of that strategy is there to see on your television screen.
The argument that AfriCom is ok because we exploit, or have exploited, other countries to some greater or lesser degree is laughable.- heinousjay, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3That wasn't the argument. It wasn't even an argument actually, and you totally misunderstood it.
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Ignoring the fact that these commands do impose changes on other sovereign countries by arguing that "just because it is called 'command' does NOT mean the US is laying a claim to any of these places" does not change the fact that there are and have been regime changes and manipulations.
Clearly history shows 'command' in such organizations does effect those around it. And it shouldn't. I suggest you go back and look where the poster said "More operations are taking place in Africa". It is you that missed my argument; the US' foreign policy problems practically all arise from their earlier intervention. Same goes for France, the UK and everybody else that has had or is in the process of wanting, empire.
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Ignoring the fact that these commands do impose changes on other sovereign countries by arguing that "just because it is called 'command' does NOT mean the US is laying a claim to any of these places" does not change the fact that there are and have been regime changes and manipulations.
- heinousjay, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3That wasn't the argument. It wasn't even an argument actually, and you totally misunderstood it.
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3And guess what - they shouldn't be there either!
- Marijuana, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Albionshores, your comment enlightened me.
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Cheers buddy.
- ciaran036, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The reason why we don't think about it too often is because our government throws money at us (even if we don't have a job - in the UK) so we can buy televisions, computers, consoles and all sorts of mind-numbing devices. They make a mistake when it came to the Internet, the Internet is totally people powered and there are no leaders dictating what goes on here (except for some things). So make as much use of it while we can.
- Kenelm, on 10/10/2007, -12/+263Secret? It isn't. I'm French, and I know about this, and every single French knows about this.
But what can we do against it? Nothing, just like against war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia... Just expressing our thoughts about it, making some petitions, but it doesn't change much. You're all like "OMG!!!! 'TIS TERRIBLE!!!!!", but you'll forget by two or three days, because you are more concerned about the dog pissing on the floor than people dying thousands of kilometers away. Maybe because these people are outside of our Monkeysphere, maybe because life is too short to worry about others...- Treshnell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19It's not that things can't be done about this stuff, it's just that not enough people have the initiative, drive, and passion to do it. Nobody wants to give up what they have, their comfortable life style, to enact the changes that need enacting. Well, maybe not nobody, but not nearly enough to make any effective change.
It's a dog eat dog world, you have to take as big a bite as you can and hold on as long as you can. That's the mentality that gets us where we are today. - crzdmn, on 10/14/2007, -13/+8I'm sorry but if the French know about this then it's sad. France and all of Europe cares more about what goes on in Iraq than what they do themselves.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests ...
I haven't seen or heard of a single attempt to organize anything against this. I'm American, we can't even protest anymore (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-15-war ... without being arrested.
What can you do?- shad0w, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4France cares more about what goes on in Iraq because they're fighting a ridiculous culture war against the US. French culture used dominate the world, and now it doesn't. The French look for any excuse to bash the United States and to elevate themselves above an "inferior" American culture. The French don't so much care about Iraq as they have an obsession with the United States itself. Yes, I'm aware that I'm generalizing, but feel free to look up the PBS documentary, "The Anti-American," which documents modern European views of the United States.
- gbarger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Culture war against the US? What are you talking about? Every time I'm in Europe, I find that the French are quite friendly, but the British are generally more arrogant (this obviously isn't true for all, I have friends there)...but I have no idea what you're talking about. Have you even been to France?
- FluffyWolf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9It is possible to care for both the invasion of Iraq and other atrocities. And you as an American are of course very welcome to raise objections upon European affairs, your views from the outside might be valuable (or not...if your input is rubbish). But I don't think the French involvement in Central African Republic is a well known thing to Europeans outside France, I did not know about it.
- Pake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6You can protest just fine. Just don't be a ***** and try to jump barricades, throw *****, destroy property, or enter private property. These are the simple laws that are always suppose to be followed, but too many protesters seem to think that while they're protesting they're allowed to do whatever.
- niczar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5What's happening in Iraq could have been avoided by doing the right thing 5 years ago.
The situation in Africa derives from the same mistakes, made over half a century ago; and the situation lingers because it's now a case of "damn if you do, damn if you don't". I'm not exonerating the French gov't here at all, there are still people in government to this day who perpetuate this disastrous status quo, because doing the right thing would have (at least, that's what they fear) disastrous immediate consequences. That's kind of what is said about Iraq, btw, and basically the longer you stay, the more dangerous it is to get out; and therefore the sooner the better.
BUT the people who are the most responsible for starting this are long dead (such as De Gaulle's africa-guy J. Focquart).
As far as I can tell, Cheney is still half-alive.
/ French- Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. I'd rather be damned for doing the right thing, though, than for doing the wrong thing.
- donttaseme, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2"What can you do?"
Vote for Pedro and I will make all of your wildest dreams come true - JOEINDIAK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Even if you vote the Corporate Democrats this year in USA, it won't help. The Bush Republicans have set up the system to be a dictatorship for the Corporate Democrats.
- shad0w, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4France cares more about what goes on in Iraq because they're fighting a ridiculous culture war against the US. French culture used dominate the world, and now it doesn't. The French look for any excuse to bash the United States and to elevate themselves above an "inferior" American culture. The French don't so much care about Iraq as they have an obsession with the United States itself. Yes, I'm aware that I'm generalizing, but feel free to look up the PBS documentary, "The Anti-American," which documents modern European views of the United States.
- blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Maybe we can do something but it's reallly not easy. Apathy is the rule and no political leader will make his campaign on this. This article talks about MItterand as president of France in 81-90's. He was supposedly a leftie (though few really believed this) and he was as much a tool of the corporate powers as were (and still are) the current right-wing presidents.
In France ELF and Total are just like Halliburton and Exxon in the US. You can feel disgusted at their actions but your power to communicate and handle the public opinion willl never be comparable to the level of strength their money gives them. - luet, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12I agree. One thing I really hate is when someone views a link on this site and says something like "Oh my god I've been against america and now I realize france is doing it too! Damn the french hiding things from their people!". As you stated, this "war" of sorts isn't very hidden. And also, stop saying THE FRENCH. It isn't like there's a huge blob monster with "THE FRENCH" written on its stomach giving commands on what to do. *****.
- RadiantBeing, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Dugg for the words tis, monkeysphere, and kilometers.
- neuralzen, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You don't put it out of mind, you set it aside, and when some opportunity comes along to make more people aware or helping some small way, you act. You can only affect your area of influence, which might not be much when it comes to giant problems like these, but there is still some small change that you can propagate to others in your communities.
- dengzhi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2remember there is 6 billion other people in the world. who gives a ***** about them, worry about yourself first.
- Shadess, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Life's too short to only worry about yourself
- ZenSUI, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2
- kettlechips, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Iceland?
- flibuste, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Sadly, that's the only thing that extreme right-winged idiots can find against France to make sure french pay for not supporting the war in Iraq. I'm not surprised how the Independent is able to bend the truth. That's the only thing they've ever knew how to do correctly.
- fixedcoma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i'm a 1/5 French in America and this is the first i've heard of this! Kind of makes me want to go join the rebels in their fight and teach them some warfare tactics!
- Treshnell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19It's not that things can't be done about this stuff, it's just that not enough people have the initiative, drive, and passion to do it. Nobody wants to give up what they have, their comfortable life style, to enact the changes that need enacting. Well, maybe not nobody, but not nearly enough to make any effective change.
- p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -65/+25Diggtards blaming Bush in 3...2...1...
- mchristiansen, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Well it certainly is tempting..... but maybe not.
- thespudmall, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6How the ***** is america to blame in this? It's the ***** french!!!!!!!!!!
- XBGX, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7that was the point...
- gryphonauto, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3They'll always find some reason to bash Bush.
- kurtwinter, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Ever consider that Bush deserves some blame? ***** rushtard. Start thinking for yourself - and no, parroting Fox News does not count. Hope you get hit by a bus before election day.
- Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Please stop with those damn meta comments, alright?
Has it ever occured to you that it's people like YOU that constantly brings up the topic of Bush first? - clothmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Troll detected.
- funkyjunk3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9engage anti-troll rating blasters!
- Albionshores, on 11/02/2007, -1/+4pichoo-pichoo-pichoo!!!
- funkyjunk3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9engage anti-troll rating blasters!
- DavidGuetta9, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25(as a Frenchman) wait... what?
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Quoi? Merde alors!
- ReXorcist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Sacrebleu!
- KirbyMeister, on 10/10/2007, -7/+82Iraq? I laugh. This makes Iraq look like a tea party, complete with frilly dresses and bows.
- representDLV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15with some cheese, wine and baguettes of course.
- expatcatalyst, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1lol, stop your killing me here.....lol
- blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14This not worse or better. It's exactly the same. We, Europeans and Americans have been exploiting the world resources to our advantage with little or no consideration for the people. We held Saddam Hussein in place while we could control him and get access to the resources. As soon as we couldn't we took him off in order to have direct control. In Africa France and other countries have been playing the same game for decades. Supporting a brutal dictatorship is the best solution to take people's attention away from who's stealing the resources: us.
- misterkaizer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4We have supported dictatorships, it's true. But if we were in it for the resources, why haven't we seen an increase in American oil reserves? Maybe it's because the bad decision to invade Iraq wasn't for resources after all...
- barius, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You're right it wasn't about the oil in Iraq. It was a cover story that allowed the U.S. to put a powerful military force right next to Iran. They may attack, they may not, but the threat is there and Iran can now be coerced much more strongly. The U.S. has a strong interest in taking the Iranians down a notch. Right now Iran represents the most powerful force in that region, and they are getting stronger all the time. The U.S. gov. (the real gov. not the peoples gov.) are afraid that Iran will eventually have enough power to overthrow the Shah of Saudi Arabia (something the Saudi's have been fighting for since the U.S. put the Shah in power decades ago). With the Shah gone, the U.S. will have lost control of the largest oil reserves in the world. Thus, it was in fact about the oil in Saudi Arabia.
- misterkaizer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4We have supported dictatorships, it's true. But if we were in it for the resources, why haven't we seen an increase in American oil reserves? Maybe it's because the bad decision to invade Iraq wasn't for resources after all...
- representDLV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15with some cheese, wine and baguettes of course.
- Karyyk, on 10/24/2007, -17/+62Hmmm...and yet the French seem to be some of the most vocal concerning the "occupation" of Iraq. Hypocrisy at its most foul, not that anyone is truly surprised...
- shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14< insert joke about French military inferiority and surprise >
But you have to admit... If there was a single country that I didn't expect to go killing other people and fighting an oppressive war like us, it'd be France.
Well, Canada, but France was close.- vdxc, on 09/29/2008, -2/+11Haven't you learnt about anything from colonisation in school yet? Granted, the French don't always get the publicity, but as they say, its the quiet ones who are most dangerous.
- Volatile36, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Yeah, at one point France controlled a large chunk of Africa and during the Napoleonic Wars, most of the mainland of Europe.
- Ansible, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3Because the French are consistently in bed with the worst dictators in Africa, naturally they complain then those dictators are deposed. Too bad the cure is as bad as the disease in the case of iraq.
- Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"Because the French are consistently in bed with the worst dictators in Africa, naturally they complain then those dictators are deposed. "
Umm, so Saddam was an African?
- Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"Because the French are consistently in bed with the worst dictators in Africa, naturally they complain then those dictators are deposed. "
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14just because one imperialist criticizes another doesn't exonerate the actions of the latter. the french also helped us against the british. not out of the kindness, but to thwart the british.
- ShosuroYuu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Lafayette FTW.
- blackjack75, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Well, maybe you didn't expect it but it's a known fact. A fact we don't care about but real nonetheless and definitely known by a large part of the french public. Every now and then you hear on french TV that the troops are in one place or another in Africa, "helping stability", which technically means that some big corporations asked the troops to calm down the slaves.
- brotherfranciz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree, I don't think this is a "secret" in the sense that the war is not being covered up. I think it comes down to media coverage - some Diggers don't know about this war not because of ignorance but because of the lack of media coverage.
- sjbdallas, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Since they're getting up for morning prayers, I would assume many of them are muslim, so why aren't the extremists blowing things up in Paris to force them to leave Africa? Why focus all their hate on the US when France is doing something argueably worse?
- niczar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You're american, so it's not really your fault that you're ignorant that THERE WAS TERRORIST BOMBINGS IN PARIS IN THE EARLY 90S FOR THIS REASON.
Duh.- sjbdallas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't blame it on me being american, blame it on my lack of access to world media until the Internet.
- niczar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You're american, so it's not really your fault that you're ignorant that THERE WAS TERRORIST BOMBINGS IN PARIS IN THE EARLY 90S FOR THIS REASON.
- shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14< insert joke about French military inferiority and surprise >
- spiritflare1, on 10/10/2007, -11/+12nothing new here - belgium did this in the congo, germany, portugal, and many others have practiced colonialism.
- svenathon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Thank you, I needed a laugh after reading that
- zplot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25Speaking of Iraq, France did fun Iraq's nuclear program in the late 70's, early 90's. The reactor at Osiraq, known as Osiris, was pretty much entirely supplied by the French. I'm not saying that the US can absolve itself of responsibility for having funded Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, but the US has gotten a lot more attention regarding these military investments than other European nations that actually provided more military support.
- thespudmall, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3YEAH!!! Blame the Europeans!
- niczar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Late 70s, yes, early 90s, no. French soldiers participated in Desert Storm, remember?
- zplot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You are right about the 90's. That was my mistake. I meant to say early 80's, before the nuclear reactor was destroyed.
- bromac, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6A single nuclear reactor isn't really military support. It's economic support.
The US caught ***** for the Iran-Contra event. Stop trying to pass the buck - the article isn't even about Iran-contra! And yes, you Americans ARE just as ***** dirty. Stop pointing at France and saying "See! They do it too, so it's alright for us!"
It's ***** exploitive and disgusting no matter who does it.- solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Difference is America has numerous critics within its own borders but France and the rest of the EU have this "what, who, us?" mentality and a holier than thou attitude about what it does in the world. Makes me angry for example when the pope refused to meet with our secretary of state after all the ***** they have been doing the past 1,500 years.
- kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't want to meet Condeleeza Rice either.
.....- jloewen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0kuzotz, I need to hear from you about your comment, many months ago, about sundown towns in MS, AR, etc. I wrote the book, SUNDOWN TOWNS. Email me at
jloewen"at"uvm.edu. (I use "at" to replace the symbol in case this website does not allow the symbol.) I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks.
- jloewen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0kuzotz, I need to hear from you about your comment, many months ago, about sundown towns in MS, AR, etc. I wrote the book, SUNDOWN TOWNS. Email me at
- kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't want to meet Condeleeza Rice either.
- zplot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Who's trying to "pass the buck"? I didn't try to defend America's funding of Iraq. If anything, France has been trying to pass the buck. France actually provided several times as much military support to Iraq. Iraq was willing to pay for it, France gave it up. Research into primary data on total foreign military aid to Iraq places France as one of the top 3 providers in the 1980s, and far about the USA. It's not alright for the USA, but it's certainly not alright for France either.
Oh, and although Iran's nuclear program has been questioned as either for civilian or military purposes, Iraq's intent was indisputably for weapons development, despite what Hussein tried to portray to the public.
- solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Difference is America has numerous critics within its own borders but France and the rest of the EU have this "what, who, us?" mentality and a holier than thou attitude about what it does in the world. Makes me angry for example when the pope refused to meet with our secretary of state after all the ***** they have been doing the past 1,500 years.
- OMGLINUXWOAH, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1The movie cache was great.
- OMGLINUXWOAH, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1Looks like you frankophiles still aren't ready to own up to the algerian war, or, don't understand what the movie was about.
- opticwind, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2I was familiar with the concept that France had been supplying the Huutu Rebels in the Rwanda genocide (no, not "Rwanda Conflict", let's call it what it was) but I would still like a few corroborating links for some of this info.
- LeStratege, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well the French government armed the (mainly Hutu) Rwandan army with firearms and missiles while the Hutu militias Interwhame murdered hundreds of thousand of Tutsis with steel machetes from China.
Can't you see the link?
- LeStratege, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well the French government armed the (mainly Hutu) Rwandan army with firearms and missiles while the Hutu militias Interwhame murdered hundreds of thousand of Tutsis with steel machetes from China.
- toasty168, on 10/10/2007, -9/+15sounds like what we do to central america.
- W00DR0W, on 10/10/2007, -9/+19U.S. did the same sort of thing (especially in South America), backing any psychopath they knew wouldn't nationalize resources for the betterment of their people, but instead would sell them off to keep the profits for themselves.
And even though crazies like Noriega and Saddam backfired, the CIA actually still considers Noriega a success.- misterkaizer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I believe you, but I'm curious what the citation on this is.
- concertina, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6You know, you can get a lot farther in life if you learn to do research yourself.
US involvement in central and south america is hardly a state secret. There was even a token congressional investigation back in the 80s involving some people you might have heard of, such as George HW Bush, John Poindexter, and Oliver North, that resulted in some convictions that were later overturned on technicalities.
If you want more examples or details, you can learn how to use the internets or something.- heinousjay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Just some friendly advice: when you want someone to come around to your point of view, telling them to look it up themselves isn't going to win any converts.
- insanepandas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Um... go look at what happened in Guatemala.
- concertina, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6You know, you can get a lot farther in life if you learn to do research yourself.
- misterkaizer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I believe you, but I'm curious what the citation on this is.
- MacGyver2210, on 10/10/2007, -20/+5Has anyone ever googled "Major French Victory" ? I hear it comes up blank...
- TheBigBad, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Why don't you check it out, it would probably take about 1.5 seconds.
- lotticasio, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours
- forgiste, on 10/10/2007, -21/+11I thought the French were pussies?!
/sarcasm- DiggMasterJ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2no, they're big tuff guys picking on the starved, impoverised, unsuspecting Africans.
- parasitewasp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"no, they're big tuff guys picking on the starved, impoverised, unsuspecting Africans." Sounds like the French are pussies
- JavertHolmes, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Naive question: why is a resource-rich country like Canada protected from such plundering when the world knows our military is not all that strong? Why isn't Canada and its resources divided like a pie?
Excellent article. A worthwhile read to the end.- bakshi, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Because you guys smell.
- x00x, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah. I can smell it, too.
- IMJGalt, on 10/10/2007, -4/+36
- pcpimpster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I thought that would be obvious but maybe he was just making a point with his question.
- pcpimpster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I thought that would be obvious but maybe he was just making a point with his question.
- wavenger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26There are many reasons. One is alliances: no country of note will jump to the aid of what Moe Szyslak so unwavering referred to as "loser countries," whereas Canada has ties the United Kingdom and the United States. Cultural connections cannot be overlooked; it is easier to brutalize someone when they don't look like you. Further in that vein, Canadians speak, read and write English, and have internet connections. Oppression on their soil would be immediately heard round the world.
- Enasni1212, on 10/10/2007, -8/+34Because Canadians are white.
Seriously, that's probably the reason--people might actually care.- bamapachyderm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Ever hear about the Jews? The Polish? Other Eastern European countries?
- Vodka2389, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Yeah that provoked WWII and the wars in Bosnia.
- bamapachyderm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Ever hear about the Jews? The Polish? Other Eastern European countries?
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2There is a general rule that countries closer to the equator are poorer. I'd suggest this is because that countries closer to the equator have harsher environments. Their basic mortality rates are higher than those in temperate zones. Therefore life for the poorest in these countries is harder. This means life is more expensive and therefore the economic growth is difficult.
In the temperate zones it was easier to develop technology to exploit the land far better. Leading to better economic development allowing for the creation of stable political and civil society.- reddikilowatt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I would suggest you spend the winter in northern Manitoba and then you can report on how harsh the environment is at the equator, if you are still alive.
I think the reason the countries in the tropics haven't developed is precisely because they don't have to endure the hardship of winter. If you build a house that will keep you warm and comfortable in -10F weather, you will be more likely to defend it from intruders, and may have increased respect for your neighbors, since they have had to construct similar homes. Along the way, the collective knowledge of the community will have increased to include all the tools necessary to build said structure, and since it is difficult to venture out in inclement weather, there is time to pass along said knowledge, and develop intellectual pursuits.- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ah when I say "closer to the equator" I'm recommending the temperate zones as being better. No civilization surely has risen much in the upper lattitudes?
I'd agree that the range in seasons is important but that is because Winters result in seeds that agriculture can be based upon. The temperate zones are partly good because technology has developed to handle them.
And another question if the central hot zones of the planet are so hospitable to life we come back to the question of poverty. How come these areas remain to blighted by poverty?
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ah when I say "closer to the equator" I'm recommending the temperate zones as being better. No civilization surely has risen much in the upper lattitudes?
- NoBlueSpoon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You should see some of our ice blizzards in the winter, quite harsh in my opinion.
- reddikilowatt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I would suggest you spend the winter in northern Manitoba and then you can report on how harsh the environment is at the equator, if you are still alive.
- expatcatalyst, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14Because of your neighbors to the South...
- StealthPersona, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Maybe it's the other way around. Northern areas had to develop technology because if you didn't work hard all summer you starved to death in winter. The quest for more efficient agriculture drove them to stronger governmental systems and more industrial innovation. Also, to resist others who would come and try to take your food and resources, they had to develop better military technology for defense (and in some cases, offense).
It seems like all over the tropics, less developed civilizations were able to survive because nothing in their environment drove them to industrialize or organize agriculture; food was readily available, growing naturally all year long. Then when the more advanced civilizations started exploring beyond their borders, the equatorial regions were 'easy pickings' because they had no defense against the European's military technology.
Even in some northern climates (like the US and Canada) the native people had abundant natural food sources (whales, buffalo, etc.) and didn't have to develop organized agriculture. Look what the Europeans and their descendants did to the native Americans...- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes there is a deeper question here of Where does Civilization come from?
Winter does play a role here in that only some areas of the world create seeds that are good to keep over winter and replant, important for agriculture.
Also animal stock is important. When the westerners arrived in other parts of the world they had the advantage of steel weapons and cavalry. They're interaction with farm animals for thousands of years also meant that diseases jumped from the europeans to the locals rather than the other way round.
My understanding is though Jared Diamond's famous book Guns Germs and Steel.
But then questions remains today why can't Niger or Uganda rise up and become less poor? I think our technology is still defeated by the environments there.- bromac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4No, they're being defeated by us. They'd be less poor and more able to rise up if we stop kicking the ***** out of them and taking all their resources.
"Hey skinny kid, why don't you eat?" "Because you beat me up and took my lunch money, Dick." - LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They ARE being "defeated." But why them and why not others?
Why is most of Africa pushed about by the rest of the world? I still say its geography.
The proverbial kid having his money taken is chosen by the bully because he is weak.
- bromac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4No, they're being defeated by us. They'd be less poor and more able to rise up if we stop kicking the ***** out of them and taking all their resources.
- Herostratos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Remember: The first civilization arose in mesopotamia - definitely a hot zone. One of the longest lasting civilizations are Egypt - also, definitely a hot zone.
The domination of the western civilization is a very recent thing as history goes. - rotundo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't know... the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, etc all came from fairly hospitable climates. And the Romans rocked the people who were in less hospitable climates.
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes there is a deeper question here of Where does Civilization come from?
- kylere, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3If you go far left paranoia, it is because the US is merely using Canada as a long term reserve of resources.
- mminor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Opportunity cost. It is a far better economic decision to invade a poor and underdeveloped society who offers little trading opportunity rather than take over a developed country like Canada who is more than willing to actively and reliably trade in high volume.
- bermudianguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Well the size of Canada also works in our favor as well , I think it would be very hard or impossible to hold a country the geographic size of Canada , as well as our alliances with other countries such as ( Great Britain , Russia ,Holland and others) not to mention that Canada borders the United States who would see an attack on Canada a threat to their safety.
- Wacer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Exactly. Any country would be insane to attack Canada, unless they want the United States go ballistic on them.
- kref1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Holland, where the hell did that one come from? Ya'll can rest easy if Holland has your back.
- unorginalityftw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Because holding an occupation in this country would be a pain in the ***** ass. Also, just because we don't have a large military, don't discount training. Canadian forces can be trained to battle in almost every region, I think the only one we're lacking at home is tropical rainforest.
Oh, and this nation would be a guerrilla's wet dream to fight an occupier in, for said reasons. - maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5And... Canada has more civillian guns per capita than even most of the USA.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Perhaps because it's the USAs biggest trading partner. It is better for the US to trade with it than to invade and occupy it---everyone woudl be poorer then.
- zoink15, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Established democracies never fight other established democracies.
- bakshi, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Because you guys smell.
- iluvhatemail, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13you would think such a proud and vocal country with a history rich in protesting (especially lately) would bring this to the attention of the world. I knew about the supplying but not the direct involvement and bombing! Sounds like the majority of the french and americans have something in common yet again. Instead of an oppressive monarchy we now have an oppressive democracy.
- jferrari, on 10/10/2007, -19/+5The French fighting a war - that's a lie!
- nycmac247, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4did you even read the article?
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -14/+10I think the weak are exploited because they are weak. And that the poor countries are poor because of geography and technology.
I don't believe that the West are uniquely wicked or the poor irrecoverably stupid.
The usual argument seems to be the Left think the poor countries are poor because the rich exploit them (which is still morally wrong) and the Right think the poor countries are poor because they are dumb and can't get the institutions of a country together.
Either way both arguments are racist.- hex2bush, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Please explain to me how you went from: "And that the poor countries are poor because of geography and technology." to "Either way both arguments are racist."
I suggest you read Jared Diamond's books: "Guns, Germs, and Steel", and "Collapse".- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Weirdly my understand IS from that book. Like is explaination for why some areas remained colonised and others did not.
Poor countries suffer from harsher environments that impacts on the health of the general population. This poorer health makes the country not just efficient but difficult to build up. Even our latest technology has difficulty dealing with the diseases of these lands.
The idea that westerners are especially more wicked than other people or that the people in poor countries are too stupid to get it together to
I was looking for a theory that explains the difference that does not rely on race.
Well its just a theory I'd like to argue out to see if it flies.- xedd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's not necessarily 'racism'. It is our (the modern, western world's) way of life; our way of thinking; our 'culture' of wealth-worship: the underlying assumption that all economic activities must be ruled by the belief that 'greed-is-good'...
I also wonder if it all comes down to the basic belief (Judeo-Christian?) that the Earth was given to mankind to exploit in any way we see fit. It is THIS belief is in need of critical examination and revision.
Anyway, it's not the color of our skin, but what goes on in our heads. - concertina, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think the point that hex2bush was trying to make is that you're oversimplifying the arguments of "the left" and "the right" and boiling everything down to racism. Particularly since environmental determinism, one of the pillars of Guns, Germs, and Steel, is a central "leftist" tenet, it makes little sense to ascribe leftist motives to racism.
Leftists do mostly believe that massive multinational corporations are exploiting poor countries. They also mostly believe that economic national wealth is largely an historical accident. The two are not mutually exclusive. One explains the context, while the other explains the current realities. Wickedness isn't caused by race for the left, it's a natural byproduct of an excess of power and (especially) money.
I don't really want to speak to what "the right" believes. They can speak for themselves I imagine. - LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I guess this is the crucial point. I think that the cultural factor in the question is overplayed. And that cultures are far more reactive to geography and the environment.
Cultures tend to justify what is done for practical reasons.
And I don't think that all the cultures in which the west has dipped its hand have been morally superior. If our culture is "bad" then it good be argued that the native cultures are "dumb"
I think the cultural question only touches the surface.
The JudeoChristian teachings have plenty of texts on NOT exploiting people and being nice to strangers. But when its pragmatic to exploit the expedient teachings come forward.
The Christian bible after all does justify slavery. - insllvn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1to concertina and hex2bush, to clarify what i believe LokitheComplex was trying to say, the right is racist against underdeveloped cultures evidenced by the fact that they would attribute their lack of success to inferiority. So far so good. The left would say that these cultures are held back by the malicious western powers. This could be said to be racist as well, as it assumes all westerners are malicious by virtue of their race or culture. Let me know if that clears things up at all. LokitheComplex, let me know if I have accurately restated your position.
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes thanks that's pretty much it.
Of course the argument does confuse race and culture but then racism is not scientific in its application.
I'd go further in that both sides therefore see the solution as being a moral revolution. That the problem is "group X has the wrong morals and should change." I'd argue that the morals of a society are largely pragmatic results of the environment.
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes thanks that's pretty much it.
- xedd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's not necessarily 'racism'. It is our (the modern, western world's) way of life; our way of thinking; our 'culture' of wealth-worship: the underlying assumption that all economic activities must be ruled by the belief that 'greed-is-good'...
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Weirdly my understand IS from that book. Like is explaination for why some areas remained colonised and others did not.
- hex2bush, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Please explain to me how you went from: "And that the poor countries are poor because of geography and technology." to "Either way both arguments are racist."
- westvaco, on 10/10/2007, -9/+49Why does the West think of Hitler as the worst monster in history? It is no doubt he was monster but he doesn't even come close to other monsters. Chairman Mao killed 150 million people. And Mikhail Suslov ( I bet you never even hear of him) was man behind the scenes from Stalin to Gorbachev (and how many of you people thought of Gorbachev was a man of peace?) who ran almost all the domestic and foreign extermination operations for the USSR and it's 'allies', Under his command the number of murders range in estimate from 300 Million to 500 Million people. These to people make Hitler look like a amateur. But more people care about Britney than the hunders of million of people who have died in our very lifetimes.
- Pake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18The mustache. He ruined it the rectangular mustache before it could ever make it to greatness.
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Hitler has a fascination in the West for a few good reasons. He is perhaps the biggest Western genocidal killer. The fascist wave he rode remains the archetype of brutal dictatorial rule, with symbols, ceremony, uniforms, propoganda and megalomaniac plans. While other leaders like Mao are responsible for more he seems to have set the style if not the measure. Has anyone else created industrialized death camps.
- westvaco, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8The USSR and China had and in the case of China has industrial death camps too. In China under the Great Leap Forward the Chinese government ran massive extermination operations. The victims bodies were then butchered with the meat going in to meals for the school children across the country. The operation was so vast that pretty much every child in China who went to school in the 1970's regularly ate human meat. Obviously most of the public never knew about it and due to the massive state induced starvation at the time many that was the only meal the kids had to eat.
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Interesting stuff. I think Mao's reputation at leastin the West is finally more accurate these days.
Still while I think that Communist and Fascist actions often amount to something similar they were coming from different directions no?
I'd say people generally relate to people more similar to themselves so a crime recedes in importance with distance in land and culture. - thebenallen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Got a source? I'm interested in this.
- ShosuroYuu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Again, I'd like to hear more specifics about this. Thank you.
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Interesting stuff. I think Mao's reputation at leastin the West is finally more accurate these days.
- ShosuroYuu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Source please? I'm not trying to be a pain but having some more information about that would be useful to me (I've heard similar things before but you seem certain in it pervasiveness.)
- westvaco, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8The USSR and China had and in the case of China has industrial death camps too. In China under the Great Leap Forward the Chinese government ran massive extermination operations. The victims bodies were then butchered with the meat going in to meals for the school children across the country. The operation was so vast that pretty much every child in China who went to school in the 1970's regularly ate human meat. Obviously most of the public never knew about it and due to the massive state induced starvation at the time many that was the only meal the kids had to eat.
- evil-doer, on 10/10/2007, -12/+9because jews complain the loudest?
- dengzhi, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3no1 likes the jews, their very existence survives in only 2 places, NYC and Israel
- bamapachyderm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Oh, look, the neo-Nazis showed up! BLOCKED.
- FluffyWolf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14The main difference is that Hitler is one of us, what happened to Germany might happen to every democratic country given the "right" circumstances. Stalin and Mao were results of totalitarian regimes in the first place, in countries which never had a democratic history, while Germany were as civilized as countries come before Hitler came to power. Hitler is our worst nightmare, before a Stalin or Mao may show up in our counties one day we first need a Hitler to pave the road for them.
- solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Germany didn't have a good history of democracy either. It was a loose confederation of Germanic states that came together under an iron-willed prussian monarchy in the 1880s which set the tone for the fascist future.
- rotundo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think that is part of it... we like to think that Stalin and Mao were unlike us; victims of flawed ideology or something. We're safe from that. But Hitler rose from our supposedly superior system of government.
And I think democracy is superior, but it's not without its flaws and dangers. What is funny is some people will still use the word democracy like it's a cure-all for a nation's ills. But Hitler proved that wasn't the case. Democracy can result in hell too.
Sure glad we're bringing democracy to Iraq, eh?
- slimpip, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Hitler had better marketing, that's why.
- amenhotep, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4@westvaco
"The victims bodies were then butchered with the meat going in to meals for the school children across the country. "
No your propaganda has gone too far, like anyone here would believe it.
Great Leap Forward was a failed economical reform if you carefully looked it up, comparing it with systematic killing is stupid and unethical. - concertina, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4There's more of a political stake in Hitler for modern Westerners. Fascism and National Socialism were funded by large moneyed interests; their escapades were made possible by the active support of corporate heavyweights. So capitalists are especially embarrassed by Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini; they are the ghosts in capitalism's closet.
- Herostratos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Please read up on history: Fascists were all opposed to the free market and classical liberalism. They marketed themselves as a "third way" between (classical) liberal capitalism and bolshevism.
- concertina, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That may very well be the case, but it does not change the fact that the free market (to the extent that it existed at the time) funded the excesses of fascism and corporatism leading up to world war 2. Fascists claimed to offer a third way, but they were selling their message to capitalist business leaders. Business leaders saw this as a new movement to crush socialism and unions, and so they allied themselves with it.
Fascism does not work with a free market, but that doesn't mean that capitalism as it exists in the real world, and not in philosophy texts, isn't guilty of enabling fascisms' existence leading up to world war II.
- concertina, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That may very well be the case, but it does not change the fact that the free market (to the extent that it existed at the time) funded the excesses of fascism and corporatism leading up to world war 2. Fascists claimed to offer a third way, but they were selling their message to capitalist business leaders. Business leaders saw this as a new movement to crush socialism and unions, and so they allied themselves with it.
- Herostratos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Please read up on history: Fascists were all opposed to the free market and classical liberalism. They marketed themselves as a "third way" between (classical) liberal capitalism and bolshevism.
- absurdist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Interesting numbers - like ones I've never heard before. Care to name sources?
- insanepandas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I agree with absurdist, 300 to 500 million seems awfully high, considering that it is larger than the entire population of the USSR.
- Herostratos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Hitler has been immortalized by war propaganda. That war propaganda was carried on to the next generation, and therefore Hitler is today regarded as the ultimate evil.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think also that there was sympathies towards communist dictators because it wasn't that long ago that socialist ideas were big. For instance, the reporter for the New York Times, who won an award, did not report the Ukrainian famine---he said everything was fine, but millions of people were killed.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Your figures seem awfully high. The biggest number I've heard of was 300 million deaths by all governments combined in the whole of the 20th century. (Though the most fureqently used figure I've seen is 200-220 million).
- gnyd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Buried as stupid and simplistic (and inaccurate numbers) - Who says "the West" ranks "monsters"? Westerners know about Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, and any other mass murderers you might care to mention. They are all evil, and the important thing is to never forget their evil deeds, and how they happened.
- thebenallen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Buried as sensationalist. No one thinks that any country has a squeeky clean record, but to inflate numbers to make a political point is both ridiculous and immature.
- gryphonauto, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1And we all thought the French were a bunch of pu**ies!
- alibenx, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1Sometimes I lol behind sandbags too.
- IMJGalt, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5
- LokitheComplex, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5So you'd agree it was about who controls the oil?
- barius, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I don't understand how that has anything to do with left vs. right...? Conservatives are just as ignorant of the causes as liberals. Further, you may want to consider that left/right are just labels and that people are people. There's so much politicizing of everything these days, if we stopped looking at each other as coming from different camps and started to look at each other as human beings we'd be far better off as a species.
- jaxcs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I bet the number of Americans who think the French are concerned only with human rights or love of man can be counted on one hand. The question is are we in Iraq because of money, power and (gasp) oil.
- juliusctw, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2And this whole time I thought America is only the country that does that....
- nufoto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Better read some history books and not the US Books......Portuguese in Angola, etc Most Colonial [Old World] Countries had colonies over seas and would battle to keep control.
- Pixelante, on 10/10/2007, -16/+7We shouldn't give any thought about this, France is in EUROPE and EUROPE does nothing wrong. We shouldn't even wipe our asses without asking EUROPE if we should and how. HEIL EUROPE.
- egthareal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8maybe we should stage another internet protest!!! [/sarcasm]
If you want any war to end you must do more than talk about it on the internet, thats for sure. - mkriss5681, on 10/10/2007, -2/+31"404 Not Found"
The conspiracy deepens - mynamis, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Who killed/buried the story?
Inside France's secret war
Published: 05 October 2007
For 40 years, the French government has been fighting a secret war in Africa, hidden not only from its people, but from the world. It has led the French to slaughter democrats, install dictator after dictator – and to fund and fuel the most vicious genocide since the Nazis. Today, this war is so violent that thousands are fleeing across the border from the Central African Republic into Darfur – seeking sanctuary in the world's most notorious killing fields- CerealFan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The French.
- databoy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5It is all about money. Democracy is an ideology which does not exist. Africa is rich in natural resources. It is in the multi-nationals interest to have a permanent civil war in Africa. The money to finance civil wars comes from mining resources and trading them for arms.
Hitler did not loose the Second World War. The SS fascist policies are alive and functioning globally beyond Hitler's wildest dreams. Have a look at the political policies of western democracies; at the heart of the ideology is fascism. It may not be full frontal confrontational fascism but a very subtle fascism style. People will not buck the system; they are too deep in financial debt with a house mortgage and credit. Buck the system and you will find yourself unemployed, house repossessed and bankrupt.- sensoukami, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Yawn...another ***** moron overusing the whole "fascist" argument to try and sound clever (and failing miserable I might add)....
- bronyraurstomp, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1If you are not going to contribute with anything positive, just shut up. Probably another ignorant US citizen, if not, just ignorant then...
- pcpimpster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Bashing the US directly is getting ***** old. There's stupid people everywhere if you havent noticed.
- pcpimpster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Bashing the US directly is getting ***** old. There's stupid people everywhere if you havent noticed.
- bronyraurstomp, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1If you are not going to contribute with anything positive, just shut up. Probably another ignorant US citizen, if not, just ignorant then...
- nufoto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's about Control and Power not Money.... Technically it's cheaper not to go to War! Hitlers ideas were not original he just borrowed from others. as most leaders do.
- sensoukami, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Yawn...another ***** moron overusing the whole "fascist" argument to try and sound clever (and failing miserable I might add)....
- Snuff99, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7'Tis the way of the world.
- colouredCoder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I cannot understand how this has been allowed to go on like this. Greed is a terrible thing
- Hananda, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Greed is the