Text 21859, 135 rader
Skriven 2008-10-14 10:37:12 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
  Kommentar till text 21712 av Michiel Van Der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Socialism in the US of A
================================
Hello Michiel,

>MVDV>I think the world will be better off without the US dictating
>MVDV>how it should look like. They have had their chance and made an
>MVDV>awfull mess of it. Time for change...

>LL>On the whole, the United States has made the world a better place.

MVDV>Hmmm... Maybe for the citizens of the USA. Others may see it different.

Well, certainly the Taliban and al-Qaeda do see it differently.
As well as the former regime in Iraq.  Not to mention the dictator
of North Korea.  And the madcap president of Iran.

>LL>If it had not been for the United States, most of the world's
>LL>population would be living as little nazis or little shogun runts.

MVDV>That is maybe what you have been taught in school, but it
MVDV>is not true. The outcome of WWII was decided with the
MVDV>battle of Stalingrad in 1942. By then it was clear that
MVDV>Germany would lose the war. That was before the US got
MVDV>involved.

While it is true the bulk of the fighting was between Germany and Russia
over Eastern Europe, had it not been for the USA, England would have
fallen to the Germans.  And without England, the whole of Western Europe
would have been in the hands of Nazi Germany forever.  As a result,
Germany had to fight not one front, not two fronts, but THREE fronts.

MVDV>without the US, the war might have lasted longer, the
MVDV>eventual emerging balance of power might have been
MVDV>different, but the Nazis would not have won. They already
MVDV>lost in 1942 against the Russians.

Had the USA not intervened, Nazi Germany would have remained firmly
in control of Western Europe, as well as in Eastern Europe, with the
Soviets being at the mercy of the Nazis.  The USA would have been
forced to a negotiated truce, which would only have lasted long
enough for Nazi Germany to rebuild its forces, most likely with
atomic or nuclear weapons.  Remember, Fascist Italy was aligned
with Nazi Germany, and the Empire of Japan was keeping the USA
at bay in the Pacific.

>LL>If the United States would cease to be, what country would then becom
>LL>the dominant power in the world?

MVDV>why would there have to be a dominant power?

Historically there has always been a dominant power.  Whether it be the
Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Spanish, the French, the British,
or the Americans, there has always been a dominant power.  Tomorrow it
might be the Chinese who rule the world.  Or some other great power that
has not yet risen.  But a dominant power there is, and will be.  It may
not be the same dominant power that rules forever, but there will always
be a dominant power.

MVDV>And if so why would it =have to be the USA.

Because, as the late Freddie Mercury said, WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!

MVDV>They did not do all that well did they?

Did well enough to free Europe from itself - twice.
Did well enough to ensure the freedom for many other countries as well.

>LL>Would it be an expansionist Russia hoping to make Europe part of its
>LL>new empire?

MVDV>Russia *is* part of Europe....

Russia has never been accepted by Europeans as being part of Europe.

>LL>What it be China, forming an alliance with her Asian neighbors India
>LL>and Japan, creating an empire with over half the world's population?

MVDV>Chine does no need any alliances, they are big enough by themselves.

China has a lot of people.  But so does India.  Just because a country
has a lot of people does not make it a superpower, much less an empire.

>LL>Nah.  It will be none of the above.

>LL>Israel will be the new empire, the Jews owning all the banks.

MVDV>Banks? Surely you are joking? Look at what is happening to
MVDV>the banks. The bankers have disqalified themselves for
MVDV>bridge duty. The won't be let near the helm for the next
MVDV>half of a century.

The Bush wants to nationalize the banks (or at least some of them).
Europe is sure to follow the Bush's lead.  And who owns the banks?
The Jews.  IOW, the USA, Europe, and the world, will be indebted to
the Jews, having to pay interest on moneys/funds borrowed.  That is
how international banking works.

>LL>Of course, the Arabs will own all the oil.  But hey, Arabs will
>LL>be glad to sell their oil to the highest bidder.

MVDV>And in 30 years the oil wells wil run dry and then they are
MVDV>back to eating sand...

The Arabs and the Jews have been fighting each other ever since
there were Arabs and Jews.  Actually before then, given the stolen
birthright dating back to Abraham.  But hey.  It's just a family
feud.  No big deal.  Once they settle their differences, the end
will come.  And then all will be well.

>LL>And it will be the Jews who own all the gold.

MVDV>And what will they do with it? Eat it?

Hoard it.

MVDV>Gold has no intrinsic value.

Gold is "potential wealth", not actual money or wealth itself.
Once the USA did away with the gold standard, in favor of a floating
standard (could be oil, could be water, could be anything one wanted
it to be), the rest of the world followed.  And that is what led to
the present financial crisis.  What the Bush is doing is a con game.
Buy the banks (nationalization) with taxpayer dollars and then allow
the banks to buy them back.  With taxpayer dollars.  None of it is
real money.  Just a scam, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

>LL>So there!  It is settled!  The Jews will own the world!

With the Burning Bush being the new Messiah.  :)

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * Forget Iraq!  Let's rebuild New Orleans!

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.thebbs.org (3:800/432)