[Ilya Murometz]

Let’s export Democracy – HUZZAHH!!! Wait, why are we so hated?

The way Imperialism worked is that you take two sides, make them fight, sell weapons to both sides, and $%&@ both sides for their natural resources. In other words: country C provokes countries A and B to engage in war. In order to fight the war, countries A and B need weapons. In order to get those weapons, they need money. In order to get money, they need enable country C to $%&@ them for their natural resources. It is not peaceful extraction if hundreds of thousands of people die in mineshafts, or have no water access due to an oil spill. It’s $%&@ plain and simple. Well pretty soon the leaders of countries A and B are going to figure out the plan and start getting along. That’s when you go in and kill them, and wait until new leaders come to power. But killing, that’s not very legitimate, so you need a guise: how about “Exporting Democracy Abroad”.

Democracy comes from the Greek Demos, meaning people, and Kratia, meaning rule. It means that People Rule or the Majority of People rule. For some weird reason people actually believe this crap. If the majority of say, oh heck, even Americans ruled, the US would have a much better education system, I mean who doesn’t want education for their kids? That person is either a moron, or a Palin voter, but I repeat myself. The GDP of the United States is roughly 14 trillion dollars. At an income tax of 25 percent, (that’s less then what most Americans pay, the government’s budget is 3.5 trillion. Shouldn’t at least ten percent of the budget be spent on kids? That’s 350 billion. Americans have about 50 million kids in schools. 350 billion over 50 million is 7,000 per kid for education. A teacher can teach 25 kids with ease, and then you get small classes, etc. So that’s 175,000 per class. Now even if 60 percent of it goes to the teacher, that’s 105,000 as a teacher’s salary, or roughly double as to what they’re being paid right now. At that rate, you will get quality teachers, and less time wasted in schools, less addiction to drugs, etc.

Also, if the people ruled, would we not have a flat tax of 25 percent, rather then most Americans paying 33% and corporate attention whores paying merely 15%? Does the majority want to fund the houses of AIG managers? And if the majority ruled, wouldn’t AIG executives be faced with the death penalty? The majority do not rule, nor have ever ruled in the US. The real rulers are the minority, who are most capable of !@#$%^&*ting and subsidizing the interest groups, which then assist in !@#$%^&*ting and subsidizing the brains of the majority, to vote for a member of an elite, so that he, (and it must be a he), to rule the country. Know any female party whips? Nah, you ladies just sit back and take the spanking. Hey, it’s for the good of the majority, or so says the niche.

And this is the exact damn kind of the Democracy that America exports. Every single damn place where Democracy has been exported, there is a war, a $%&@ of natural resources, and hailing of amoral leaders. Should a president come into a country and dare to kick out the corporate interests, oh no, he must be a dictator. Putin is much better then Yeltsin in every single damn aspect of governance. Nevertheless Yeltsin was a good guy in the press, Putin a bad guy; why? Why? Why? Well because Putin did not allow Chevron to $%&@ the Kamchatkan Peninsula for oil. Putin shared oil revenues with the people, instead of Chevron. Putin enabled Russians to have the highest living standards then they have ever had before, via re-investing these oil revenues, and promoting a method of oil extraction that is environmentally friendlier then Chevron’s. For this, Putin is evil. Under the so-called Democratic Yeltsin, five journalists were killed in one day, on October 3, 1993. Under Putin no such thing took place, yet Yeltsin is the Democrat. I guess the majority of people just want the journalists dead.

Take Equatorial Guinea. There is no pressure on their leader, even though a city in Equatorial Guinea is the sex-slave trade capital of the World. Why? The leader of Equatorial Guinea shares the revenue, rather generously, with the oil companies. Or take Saddam Hussein vs. the Saudi Arabia. The pro-oil lobby wants to explain that living standards in Saudi Arabia are just awesome, kinda forgetting the fact that most terrorists come from Saudi Arabia. That, they claim, must be religion. Will umm, Indonesia is pretty religious, not too much terrorists from that country. Ahh, then it must be the region, the Middle East. Nope, no terrorists from Israel, either. Then we have an explanation that it’s really those pesky Arabs. Nope, no Turkish terrorists. Ahh, but then there’s a claim that it’s all of the above; nope, no Iranian terrorists. Could it be that, *gasp* Saudi Arabia doesn’t provide services for the majority of the population. According to CIA World Factbook, Saudi Arabia takes care of its citizens so stellarly, that its literacy rate is 78.8%. That means that a fifth of Saudi Arabia’s population cannot read and write. But they share oil revenues with the Corporations, so they get good press.

Exactly the same thing in Kuwait. Now in United Arab Emirates, there is a twist; $%&@ is legal. And the US chief exporters of Democracy, the Corporations, are just fine with that. In fact they accepted the UAE $%&@ laws as their own, and when a female American citizen sued the corporations for $%&@, she got $%&@ed. For those who are surprised, look up to Equatorial Guinea.

In Serbia, when “Democracy” entered, Yugoslavia fell apart. Of course it wasn’t really Democracy interests, it was corporate interests backed by petty nationalism explaining to everyone that they are “Democracy” – I mean if Americans think that majority wants Madoff under house arrest, why can’t the majority think that bombing people will make Americans look like liberators. I mean if I kill your kid, you know the pesky brat that always wants attention, food, a true deficit of the family, if I kill him, will I be greeted as a Liberator in the family? I mean – what the $%&@ were you guys thinking, those who believed Dick that “we will be greeted as Liberators”? Medvedev, currently a good guy because he meets the qualification of not being Putin and agreeing to forgive Bush’s $%&@fest, stated that Kosovo will be Europe’s Iraq. And he’s right, the government of Czech Republic lost quite a bit of seats to the pro-Serbian party for the Czech Republic’s stance on Kosovo.

Now shifting to Afghanistan, the culmination of US Democracy export. Currently the government of Afghanistan passed a law that in effect legalizes $%&@, and, now get this, STATES THAT THE WOMAN BEING !@#$%*^ MUST BE SEXUALLY PLEASANT TO HER HUSBAND!!! Or her future husband. Not only do you get !@#$%*^ !@#$%*, you must enjoy it, or get lashes for not smiling whilst being !@#$%*^. How in the World is this related to Democracy? This goes beyond Democracy, beyond even the most basic aspects of common sense. This is !@#$@#$ !@#$%^&*.

But that’s not all. See when the Romans practiced imperialism, the Romans did not imperialize their own citizens. The UK, and later the US, managed to do just that. Three is no other country fighting in Iraq, the US elites have manage to Imperialize their own citizens. Oh right, the Coalition of the Billing. They provide what, 10 percent of the troops? Less then 10 percent?

Now get back to watching Faux Noise and be the good slave you are. And bash that evil poster, who dares to criticize the country. And don’t forget to bash everyone who criticizes your actions, and if you have to make up facts, like that Saudis have a stellar standards of living, by all means do so, especially if your conscience has been so brainwashed that it will not get in the way....

[SilverHawk]

So Globalism is the new Imperialism, eh? I thought it was the first step on the road to a world wide stateless society!

[Mongol Federation]

SilverHawk, on Apr 5 2009, 02:59 AM, said:

So Globalism is the new Imperialism, eh? I thought it was the first step on the road to a world wide stateless society!

"Exporting 'Democracy'" is Imperialism.

[SilverHawk]

New Inca Empire, on Apr 5 2009, 02:04 AM, said:

"Exporting 'Democracy'" is Imperialism.

I don't remembering making anybody a colony of the United States, you tell me when that happens and then you can start yammering about "American Imperialist Oppression".

[Ilya Murometz]

SilverHawk, on Apr 5 2009, 12:06 AM, said:

I don't remembering making anybody a colony of the United States, you tell me when that happens and then you can start yammering about "American Imperialist Oppression".

Iraq? Ring a bell at all?

[SilverHawk]

Ilya Murometz, on Apr 5 2009, 02:11 AM, said:

Iraq? Ring a bell at all?

Are they an american colony? This is news to the USAF.

[Ilya Murometz]

SilverHawk, on Apr 5 2009, 12:12 AM, said:

Are they an american colony? This is news to the USAF.

Well then, with all due respect, the USAF is not well informed.

SilverHawk, on Apr 4 2009, 11:59 PM, said:

So Globalism is the new Imperialism, eh? I thought it was the first step on the road to a world wide stateless society!

Globalism would have happened either way after the Internet Revolution. (Gore comments are off-topic here.) Whether Imperialism or real Democracy is applied to Globalism remains to be seen.

[deSouza]

SilverHawk, on Apr 5 2009, 04:06 AM, said:

I don't remembering making anybody a colony of the United States, you tell me when that happens and then you can start yammering about "American Imperialist Oppression".

Going to war for peace is like !@#$@#$ for virginity.
There was a very economic reason for the invasion of iraq, and although the term colony is already out of fashion, you can still colonize somewhere without an official colonial structure and official declarations of superiority.

[Aeternos Astramora]

It got hard to follow with all the !@#%!@#@$^#$^#$%&U%$&#Q$^!@YT%#$!^Y%$# stuff.

Also, normally when someone calls Iraq an American colony is when I stop listening.

[Ilya Murometz]

Aeternos Astramora, on Apr 5 2009, 12:21 AM, said:

It got hard to follow with all the !@#%!@#@$^#$^#$%&U%$&#Q$^!@YT%#$!^Y%$# stuff.

Also, normally when someone calls Iraq an American colony is when I stop listening.

Stellar critique of the OPs content.

[Aeternos Astramora]

Ilya Murometz, on Apr 5 2009, 02:22 AM, said:

Stellar critique of the OPs content.

Stellar recognition that I was responding to your later post.

[Ilya Murometz]

Aeternos Astramora, on Apr 5 2009, 12:23 AM, said:

Stellar recognition that I was responding to your later post.

Aeternos Astramora, on Apr 5 2009, 12:21 AM, said:

It got hard to follow with all the !@#%!@#@$^#$^#$%&U%$&#Q$^!@YT%#$!^Y%$# stuff.

Really? Glad we talked. Oh, do show me where my later posts have "!@#%" in them. Prior to this one.

This post has been edited by Ilya Murometz: 05 April 2009 - 01:22 AM

[deSouza]

Aeternos Astramora, on Apr 5 2009, 04:21 AM, said:

Also, normally when someone calls Iraq an American colony is when I stop listening.

Is that a taboo for you?

[Aeternos Astramora]

Ilya Murometz, on Apr 5 2009, 02:27 AM, said:

Really? Glad we talked. Oh, do show me where my later posts have "!@#%" in them. Prior to this one.

/me sigh. You're making this way too hard. Let me give you a walkthrough.

Line #1: Commenting on your annoying style. I was not attempting a critique.

Line #2: Critiquing your later post.

[Ilya Murometz]

Aeternos Astramora, on Apr 5 2009, 12:29 AM, said:

I was not attempting a critique.

Of course not. So you posted here to inform me that my style is annoying? Noted. Moving on....

[SilverHawk]

deSouza, on Apr 5 2009, 02:16 AM, said:

Going to war for peace is like !@#$@#$ for virginity.
There was a very economic reason for the invasion of iraq, and although the term colony is already out of fashion, you can still colonize somewhere without an official colonial structure and official declarations of superiority.

Wait, what? If you're still trying to say we went to war with Saddem because he was trying to push the Euro as the currency of the oil trade, you're a bit loose in the head.

Quote

Well then, with all due respect, the USAF is not well informed.

I'm pretty sure it has more to do with you pulling new meanings for words out of your rectum.

This post has been edited by SilverHawk: 05 April 2009 - 01:27 AM

[Ilya Murometz]

SilverHawk, on Apr 5 2009, 12:32 AM, said:

Wait, what? If you're still trying to say we went to war with Saddem because he was trying to push the Euro as the currency of the oil trade, you're a bit loose in the head.



I'm pretty sure it has more to do with you pulling new meanings for words out of your rectum.

1. Why did we go to war with Saddam. Do provide a reason.

2. Definition came from Dictionary.com - but I am sure I pulled that site from my rectum, so it's ok.

[Aeternos Astramora]

Ilya Murometz, on Apr 5 2009, 02:31 AM, said:

Of course not. So you posted here to inform me that my style is annoying? Noted. Moving on....

And also about the second point, but nice quote mine. You have an ability at taking text out of context. I recall you doing it before in the Holocaust thread with your signature. Perhaps you should work on that. It's not very conducive to debate. Want to see?

Quote

Let’s export Democracy – HUZZAHH!!

Wow. Talk about a contradictory statement. Here you are supporting the exportation of democracy, but it seems in other threads, you absolutely despise it. What the hell?

I don't like being quote mined.

[deSouza]

SilverHawk, on Apr 5 2009, 04:32 AM, said:

Wait, what? If you're still trying to say we went to war with Saddem because he was trying to push the Euro as the currency of the oil trade, you're a bit loose in the head.

While that did influentiate it, it merely gave the forces interested in the war more material to work with.
Its still a more real reason than weapons of mass destruction, though.

This post has been edited by deSouza: 05 April 2009 - 01:34 AM

[SilverHawk]

Ilya Murometz, on Apr 5 2009, 02:34 AM, said:

1. Why did we go to war with Saddam. Do provide a reason.

2. Definition came from Dictionary.com - but I am sure I pulled that site from my rectum, so it's ok.

1. You can request the specifics from the US Library of Congress under the Freedom of Information Act. But the jist is, we went to war under the obligation of the treaty Saddam signed after his crushing defeat after Operation Desert Storm that he catalogue and destroy all his Chemical and Biological Muntions and to cease development and production of any WMDs. The treaty required total transperancy and absolutely no hinderance to UN Inspections, annouced or otherwised.

He failed to do this when 500 Chemical artillery shells of variable calibers carrying mustard, sarin and vx went poof and the best reason he had was "I don't know what you're talking about" and then proceeded to obstruct and eject weapon inspectors at every turn.

He violated the treaty in it's entirety and we, as the US, were under obligation to go in and account for these weapons under use of military force. So we did and here we are. It's not for the Oil, it never has been, what you want to believe is irrelevant.

2. It's neither Imperialism or Colony that Iraq falls under.

Quote

While that did influentiate it, it merely gave the forces interested in the war more material to work with.
Its still a more real reason than weapons of mass destruction, though.

Here is your tin-foil hat, my good sir, please move along and avoid eye contact with the uniformed officers.

This post has been edited by SilverHawk: 05 April 2009 - 01:36 AM