China violates human rights and of course the US ignores it...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, May 6, 2007.

  1. LOL, no shit? As opposed to what principled country? What planet are you from?

    Utopia (from Greek: οὐ no, and τόπος, place, i.e. "no place" or "place that does not exist") is an imaginary island, depicted by Sir Thomas More as a perfect social, legal, and political system. It may be used pejoratively, to refer to a society that is unrealistic and impossible to realize. It has also been used to describe actual communities founded in attempts to create an ideal society.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia
     
    #11     May 7, 2007
  2. Strawman, yada, yada, yada.

    So you are saying we are unprincipled, okay, I agree.

    This applies and is demonstrated in our relations with China, Iraq, preference to Israel, etc.

    So, now can I expect you to be mute about human rights violations to Americans as well?

    Since we don't really care about others, then we don't really care about our fellow man, including Americans.

    Wait, that can't be true. Look at health care in this country, the Katrina victims, the level of poverty, treatment of drug users...oh yes, we truly care about human rights...


     
    #12     May 7, 2007
  3. Please name one principled country
     
    #13     May 7, 2007
  4. One fallacious point after another.

    America's reluctance to confront China is based upon China's military capability. Period.

    You talk about economic interest. Who's? I don't know of a pro-China lobby in Congress or the administration. Do you?

    You make these ridiculous "sheeple" statements. "Sell us cheap shit, buy our bonds" blah, blah. But you have no data supporting your claims. The Fed estimates that if China exited the treasury market the concession in yields would be slight. The China supports our debt argument is the same shit people said about the Arabs in the 70's and the Jap's in the 80's. There's no evidence of truth.

    It's the same with your moonbat "war for oil" crap. Truth is you have no tangible proof that oil was an ingredient in Bush's decision. His alleged "buddies" in the Gulf didn't support the invasion. Neither did Putin or Chavez, two guys who are CLEARLY more powerful because of higher crude prices.

    Anyone with any insight into our Iraq policy knows this war is about 1) Israel, 2) Israel and 3) Israel.

    Oil grab, lol. By who? The oil revenue is socialized. I know it's preferable to think Texans and HAL and Red Adair are shooting Muslims and stealing oil but the average western Company staking it out is just as likely to be European (think BP or Royal Shell) as American.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0507/p01s02-wome.html?page=3

    Bottom line: you're full of shit.

     
    #14     May 7, 2007
  5. 100% strawman.



     
    #15     May 7, 2007
  6. I never thought you had the ability to handle the truth, this was confirmed when you claimed you would leave ET a couple of times, then slunk back like a skunk in heat...and once again, true colors...true colors...


     
    #16     May 7, 2007
  7. 100% strawman. Also non sequitur and fallacious. But then again your whole ideology is based on outright lies, distortions, intellectual dishonesty and bullying.

    At your core you're a miserable person. I respect that. We all have demons so I cut you slack. At least you're reflective on rare occasion. But your symptoms are becoming quite common among well educated but financially unsuccessful Westerners. You all are bitter. Disenfranchised. Lonely.

    It's sad but alas temporary. Look at the bright side. Your life is winding down to just a few thousand more days......

     
    #17     May 7, 2007


  8. Paul Wolfowitz was a chief architect and staunch supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.


    Wolfowitz = Neocon = Globalist= unquestioning defender of the Israeli government
     
    #18     May 7, 2007
  9. I never thought you had the ability to handle the truth, this was confirmed when you claimed you would leave ET a couple of times, then slunk back like a skunk in heat...and once again, true colors...true colors...

     
    #19     May 7, 2007
  10. Hmm, how about extending your logic just a tad:

    Fukuyama = Neocon = Japanese = supporter of the war in Iraq
    Colin Powell/Condi Rice = Neocons = blacks = African americans = supporters of the war in Iraq
    Bush = Neocon = Evangelical = supporter of the war in Iraq.
    Silvio Berlusconi = Neocon = Catholic = Vatican = strong supporter of the war in Iraq.

    So do you think the war in Iraq was for Israel or Japan or Africa or Vatican or the Evangelical church or all of the above. Frankly the stupidity of simpletons reaching conclusions based on the fact that several neocons were jewish is astonishing.
     
    #20     May 7, 2007