It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Blurring the Lines Between the "Good Guys" and "The Evildoers"

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 03:58 PM

originally posted by: aboutface
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Wow. I love this presentation. I hope it makes people think and reflect about blindly taking sides. It kind of illustrates that the old adages and definitions have outlived their appointed time. Some of us wish for a new order wherein national boundaries are dissolved and the 'We VS Them' mentality stops focusing on the differences, and allows the 'mankind is all family' to take hold.

Except that this is exactly what the powerful elite want, for national boundaries to be dissolved and a one World government for the good of mankind and the Earth to exist. The only way that the utopia you and many others want realized could happen is if everybody had your opinions, and your views.

Since people have different opinions and views due to being born and raised in different cultures, living and experiencing life in different regions, and there are many differences in spiritual and religious views as well as materialism, such utopia is simply not possible.

The only way it can occur is if one point of view, one form of culture, etc is forced on everyone else.

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 05:15 PM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ukraine is most probably afraid of what happened in Crimea could happen in Ukraine. After all pro-Russian forces took control by force of airports and other vital interests in Crimea.

Russian forces seize Crimea; Ukraine’s interim president decries ‘aggression’

By Kathy Lally, William Booth and Will Englund March 1, 2014

MOSCOW — Russian troops took control of vital installations across the Crimean Peninsula on Saturday, and Russian President Vladimir Putin secured authorization to send in more as the Kremlin set the stage for a high-stakes international showdown over the future of Ukraine.


Not to mention the taking by force of parliament in Crimea and flying only the Russian flag BEFORE the so called free vote.

Putin Moves Russian Troops Into Crimea

Posted: 03/01/2014 8:57 am EST Updated: 05/01/2014 5:59 am EDT

SEVASTOPOL, Ukraine (AP) — The pro-Russian leader of Ukraine's Crimea region claimed control of the military and police there Friday and appealed to Russia's President Vladimir Putin for help in keeping peace, sharpening the discord between the two Slavic neighbor countries.

It was the latest escalation following the ouster of Ukraine's pro-Russian president last week by a protest movement aimed at turning Ukraine toward the European Union and away from Russia.

Armed men described as Russian troops took control of key airports and a communications center in Crimea on Friday. Ukraine has accused Russia of a "military invasion and occupation" — a claim that brought an alarming new dimension to the crisis, and raised fears that Moscow is moving to annex a strategic peninsula where Russia's Black Sea fleet is based.

Putin, and pro-Russian sources at first claimed that the use of the Russian military was a last minute attempt to "safeguard Russian citizens in the region", but it was later found that the government of Russia had made plans before hand on moving in their military forces.

Putin admitted recently that it was true and they had planned it.

9 March 2015 Last updated at 10:58 ET

Putin reveals secrets of Russia's Crimea takeover plot

Vladimir Putin has admitted for the first time that the plan to annex Crimea was ordered weeks before the referendum on self-determination.

Crimea was formally absorbed into Russia on 18 March, to international condemnation, after unidentified gunmen took over the peninsula.

Mr Putin said on TV he had ordered work on "returning Crimea" to begin at an all-night meeting on 22 February.

The meeting was called after Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted.

Speaking last year, Mr Putin had said only that he took his final decision about Crimea after secret, undated opinion polls showed 80% of Crimeans favoured joining Russia.

All of this started after the Ukranians ousted the pro-Russian Ukranian President Viktor Yanukovych.

It's obvious Russia wants control of not only Crimea but Ukraine as well.

edit on 18-3-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct link and add comment.

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:09 PM
Now watch this. In October last year Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed that Russia has no plans to invade Ukraine. This despite the fact that they claimed the same thing about Crimea.

Russia’s Lavrov Reassures Czech President That Moscow Has no Plans to Invade Ukraine

08:44 17.10.2014

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reassured the President of Czech Republic Milos Zeman on the sidelines of the ASEM Summit in Milan that Russia is not planning to invade Eastern Ukraine, Czech president's office said.

PRAGUE, October 17 (RIA Novosti) - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reassured the President of the Czech Republic Milos Zeman on the sidelines of the ASEM Summit in Milan that Russia is not planning to invade Eastern Ukraine, Czech president's office said.

But that makes no sense since Russia has been sending troops into eastern Ukraine. Although, again Russia was claiming they never sent troops into eastern Ukraine.

Russia says no proof it sent troops, arms to east Ukraine

By Gabriela Baczynska

MOSCOW Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:08am EST

(Reuters) - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov sought to fend off fresh accusations from Kiev that Moscow is sending soldiers and weapons to Ukraine and said he hoped for progress at talks on the conflict on Wednesday despite renewed fighting.

Kiev accused Russian regular forces on Tuesday of attacking its troops in eastern Ukraine, one of its boldest assertions yet that Russia's military is directly involved in a conflict in which more than 4,800 people have died since last April.

Russia has up to 9,000 troops in Ukraine, says Poroshenko

21/01 17:27 CET

Russia has once again denied accusations from Kyiv that Moscow is sending troops to Ukraine.

It came ahead of talks in Berlin on the Minsk plan, which sets out a series of points to which both sides agreed last year, but which failed to stop the fighting.

“I promise you, we will have an absolutely clear and stable situation in Ukraine if Russia fulfills point number four (of the Minsk plan): close the border and withdraw all the foreign troops from my territory,” said the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “Because now, and the dates of our intelligence confirmed by independent sources, we have more than 9,000 troops of Russian Federation on my territory.”

And who do you think is also arming the pro-Russian "volunteer soldiers" fighting in eastern Ukraine? Or who is giving contracts to "the volunteer soldiers" that they will be able to stay in eastern Ukraine if they win?

Watch in this video at about 2 minutes 47 seconds on the interview they talk to a Brazilian fighting there and he says he has a contract that if they win he can stay there. He could be a fugitive in Brazil who wants to escape hence joined the fighting in Ukraine.

Also notice in this video that "far right separatists" from nations like France are fighting WITH the pro-Russian forces against the Ukranians.

Published on Mar 18, 2015

As the conflict in eastern Ukraine continues, thousands of foreign soldiers are joining the fight alongside the pro-Russia separatists of the Donetsk People's Republic (DNR). While the majority of these soldiers are from Russia, a growing number of volunteers from western Europe, and even as far as Brazil, are joining the ranks of the separatist forces.

I don't speak Russian, maybe someone who can can translate what they are saying in the following video but the video is tagged as "Captured Russian soldiers who took part in the fighting in eastern Ukraine 19.03.2015"

Video of more Russian military moving to eastern Ukraine.

Also, according to this video Russian officials claim the Russian soldiers captured in eastern Ukraine were there "by accident".

edit on 18-3-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:14 PM

Russia Claims Captured Soldiers Crossed Ukraine Border by Accident

By Ivan Nechepurenko
Aug. 26 2014 12:08
Last edited 12:44

“We were told that we were making a 70-kilometer march and nothing else,” a man, who identified himself as Ivan Melchakov,19, said on camera.

The Russian Defense Ministry has confirmed that the ten Russian paratroopers captured by Ukrainian security services in the country's east are indeed Russian, but said they crossed the border by mistake.

Ukrainian security services earlier on Tuesday claimed they had detained ten Russian servicemen in the eastern Donetsk region and published footage of the men online.

A statement published by the security agency said the captured soldiers belonged to the 71211 military unit of the Russian Armed Forces, based in the Russian town of Kostroma.

The Russian Defense Ministry later on Tuesday confirmed to state-run media the detained servicemen are Russian, but said they had crossed the borderaccidentally.

The mentioned servicemen were patrolling the Russian-Ukrainian border, and crossed it, probably, accidentally, at an unmarked border point,” an unidentified source told news agency RIA-Novosti on Tuesday.

You think that is true that they were there by "accident"?

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:36 PM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

WWIII will almost certainly feature a conflict where the division of good vs evil will division of good vs evil will depend solely on propaganda and perception rather than anything remotely tangible.

It's important people think as you are regarding the manipulation required to go into a war. and to sustain it. Propoganda is nothing new to war however, in fact they fine tuned it in both previous world wars. What is different is the means to get the propaganda out that is now faster, lighter touch and more interactive with end user citizen.

Don't think there will be a WW3, other than we are kind of in it now we are just not marched out in to trenches any more. People have evolved how to fight and subjugate without rolling in tanks, other than the odd spattering of Afghanistan or Iraq. One thing is certain, no war on a larger scale is about religion, it is about economics, and the smaller Isis, Israel Zimbabwe localized issues do nothing but encourage regional instability whilst global controls are moving into place.

I think there will be a evolving of 'war' to be about water, economics, mineral and energy resources and information. I think this war is not a5 year thing, it is a long long long term push and shove. I think that untimely the world will move towards a global head, with countries disappearing maybe in 2-300 years, with regional controls in play, we have never moved on from Rome, and I don't think we ever will. I'll never know if I'm right though!

S and F

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 07:09 PM
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Meanwhile NATO and western sources are capable of propaganda, you don't think the same could be said of Russia?

Do tell me, if the "pro-Russian" forces prevail in eastern Ukraine who benefits from it if not Russia? So who is most likely to be giving guaranteed contracts to stay in Eastern Ukraine if the "pro-Russian" separatist win over the region?

Not to mention the fact that there are RUSSIANS fighting WITH the Ukranians. Not all Russians agree with the Russian government over Crimea or Ukraine.

That's just one example, there are many more.

When the situation in Ukraine started, the protests, I posted evidence that a RUSSIAN journalist found proof that Russian nationals from Russia who were just "visiting" were being allowed to vote in the Crimean referendum to join Russia.

There were reports of Russian soldiers fighting in Crimea, although at first the Russians denied it, it was confirmed that indeed Russian soldiers have been fighting with the separatists in Crimea.

They were never there: Russia's silence for families of troops killed in Ukraine

The Kremlin denies sending troops into the conflict in east Ukraine, but Russian relatives of those who have served and died across the border tell a different story

A growing body of information about Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine has started to reveal a damning picture of Moscows intervention in the separatist conflict there, despite Kremlin denials of involvement.

As fighting continued to flare in the east particularly around Donetsk airport, an online organisation has catalogued more than 260 people reportedly killed in eastern Ukraine. The Open Russia organisation, started by the Kremlin critic Mikhail Khodorkovsky, has also published a map showing where the dead are from.

The official denial of Russian military participation in Ukraine has pressured the relatives of those who served and died there to keep silent, and could deprive many of them of the benefits to which they are entitled. But some have started to speak out.

Yelena Tumanova, a hospital orderly from Russia’s Mari El republic, said her son Anton Tumanov told her by phone on 10 August that his army unit was being sent to Donetsk. On 20 August, a coffin came back to Mari El with a small window through which she could see his face. His legs had been torn off by an artillery strike, his comrades told her. He was 20 years old.

When he chose this path, we didn’t know they were sending our soldiers to Ukraine,” Tumanova told the Guardian. “If I would have known, if he would have known … he would not have joined up again. Even if he would have, I wouldn’t have let him. But he said: ‘Don’t worry, [the Russian president Vladimir] Putin says they won’t send anyone there.’”

The Russians were lying about not sending troops to fight in Crimea, and they are lying about not sending troops to eastern Ukraine.

edit on 18-3-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 07:13 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Was this meant to be to me? It doesn't follow post point?

In answer to your question anyway, of course Russia is full of propaganda. They ALL are.

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 07:23 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

(This is a reply to the collection of your posts on this page of the thread. I read each of them, and thank you for your thoughts.)

All I can say is to repeat one of the first lines of the OP:

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
the division of good vs evil will depend solely on propaganda and perception rather than anything remotely tangible.

I can't claim that I consider any present day "news source" be it formerly respected news agency, independent journalist, Twitter feed, or over-the-back-fence scuttlebutt to be any more reliable than pure propaganda is at this point. Dureing the 2000 NATO bombing of Kosovo, the federal government installed a handful of Ft Bragg PSYOP officers at CNN's Atlanta news headquarters to ensure reports on the operation would maintain public support. In 2002, the Associated Press reported that Polish coalition troops in Iraq had uncovered a massive cache of Sarin Nerve gas chemical munitions... turned out to be pure propaganda that was oh-so useful at the time. How much blatant manipulation was used by the media to cover up Pat Tillman's death by "friendly fire" and turn the man into a veritable Captain America whose death could only be honored by more young men signing up for service? TThe media worked hand-in-hand with the government to craft the Jessica Lynch story and it was only after Lynch, herself stated that much of the story was scripted for her that she effectively disappeared from the public eye and the government and media went eerily silent regarding her.

Looking at EVERY "news" article regarding the Ukraine, Crimea, and Russia with the same eye leads me to ask "OK, and what if this story is manipulated, PSYOP invented BS too? What then?" At that point I'm left with only two options:
1. swallow BS
2. Take reality based solely off of what is obviously known and apparent.

I choose #2. In doing so, I see that Crimeans were pro-Russia long before it was "cool" and every piece of credible evidence shows Russia (wisely) gathering forces on the Ukrainian border after that nation fell into near civil war and deposed their democratically elected government, replacing them with aggressively Anti-Russian Western Ukrainian politicians. The rest is so intrinsically connected with "what ifs" and "if you just turn your head this way, you'll see this angle" conjecture that it is a veritable breeding ground for propaganda.

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 07:45 PM
a reply to: zazzafrazz

I posted as a reply to your earlier post, just like you did responding to me, and I do agree with your last response. Both are capable of propaganda.

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 08:31 PM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Meanwhile part of what you are saying is true we can always surmise at least part of the truth if we investigate enough the situation.

Almost at the end of the war when Bush said that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there was a report from a Pentagon official, John A. Shaw, who had found evidence that the Russians had been moving chemical weapons from Iraq into Syria. That man lost his job and the reason he was given for losing his job was because he went to the press with this information. I reported this back then in the forums. Shaw came forward with the information to the public because the Bush administration decided to bury the story.

Not that long ago the Obama administration stated that Syria had gotten chemical armaments from Iraq. In 2013 the Washington times announced what Shaw had been reporting in 2003, and what he was fired for from the Pentagon for going to the public with this information and it corroborated his findings.

Government officials many times keep information hidden from the public only to use it when "they need it most".

However, claiming that you don't believe any news sources whether they are independent no matter from wherever they are, how do you get any information and how do you actually know whether it is true or propaganda?

The fact that Russia has been lying about not having plans to invade Crimea, and Ukraine can be easily shown to be false simply by reading the before and after claims from Russian officials and Putin himself.

edit on 18-3-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add link.

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:07 AM

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
However, claiming that you don't believe any news sources whether they are independent no matter from wherever they are, how do you get any information and how do you actually know whether it is true or propaganda?

It's fairly easy to do if you simply apply a pragmatic eye towards the news. The more complicated the chain and the more doubt the background noise (i.e. governments and "True Believers") are making in support of that complex chain, the less practical the "news" becomes. Effective propaganda usually depends on the acceptance of a theoretical connection or accusation. Sherlock Holmes was a fictional literary character dreamed up by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, not a real life detective... When the madness reaches the level of complexity seemingly befitting of Watson and Holmes, it is very statistically improbable that the plot was devised in the first place and solved by the same ineptitude we see in governments the world over.

The fact that Russia has been lying about not having plans to invade Crimea, and Ukraine can be easily shown to be false simply by reading the before and after claims from Russian officials and Putin himself.

The "fact" that Russia was lying can be easily shown to be false?
I do not believe that sentence means what you intended it to mean.

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:32 AM
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Hard to say that this point in time is more unique than any other. In fact I could find more similarities than anything. WWI and WWII were a result of alliances and building up militarizes. "Super Powers" have to use the opposing idealist country or power to justify their own actions. I could argue either side, Russia is putting its sights on former satellite countries to rebuild the USSR *is what most would say* but really pride. None the less everyone knows that claiming these types of country grabs for ethnics in suffering countries is a parallel of Germany in WWII. America on the other hand has been doing it more flamboyant, using false claims to grab countries of interest, even though most of the world sees it for what it is.
Either way its a mirror of both world wars, belligerent and provocative acts with alternative motives in mind. As far as the alliances go, it should go without saying the bullying the west does to keep their "allies" together. Russia on the other hand.....

Germany cozying up to Russia

Italy expressing their lean towards Russia

so the beginning phases of a resistance towards NATO is starting. This is the very beginning, these events will unfold subtlety over the course of a few years as it usually has in the past. Humans, like frogs will sit in the pot of water and slowly become acclimated to the rising temperature. By then we will have quite a larger problem to address, weird how a few generations buffered in between past and present will blind people to history repeating itself.

I suppose the only good guys are the ones who see this pillaging of the earth for what it is, Imperialist pissing contests. Then strongly oppose it, hopefully well see some real leadership in other countries do the right thing and look out for the best interest in their domestic well being while keeping healthy foreign relationships.
edit on 19-3-2015 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:45 AM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Except for the imperative fact that Shaw wasnt fired for disclosing that information, but for massive corruption in a telecommunications scandal.

If Iraq actually had nuclear weapons, or any serious biological agents, you'd think they would have used them against the invading forces. They certainly did have chemical weapons at one point, they illegally used them on Iran, and the US did nothing. The US only gives a sh# about WMD when they disapprove of the target.

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:53 AM
Thank you for this thread. People of Crimea should have to suffer because of what is going on. Same for the many caught in the shelling, living in basements in fear of their lives, starving, injured and being taunted by soldiers dressed in Nazi uniforms. A lot are stuck in the middle, just wanting Independence.

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 03:59 AM
a reply to: Ridhya

But there is an even more striking instance of the United States ignoring use of the chemical weapons that killed tens of thousands of people — during the grinding Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. As documented in 2002 by Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs, the Reagan administration knew full well it was selling materials to Iraq that was being used for the manufacture of chemical weapons, and that Iraq was using such weapons, but U.S. officials were more concerned about whether Iran would win rather than how Iraq might eke out a victory. Dobbs noted that Iraq’s chemical weapons’ use was “hardly a secret, with the Iraqi military issuing this warning in February 1984: “The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it . . . and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide"

His tory lesson, when the U.S. Looked the other way

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 10:02 AM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yeah, I guess I came across that way, but I'm not a simple dreamer. I am terrified of a one world government in the way it is forming, because there are clearly controllers and comptrollers, and citizens without wealth are obviously being shunted aside. I don't have the answers but I feel we need to work on reversing and slowly dissolving some trade and cultural barriers instead of building them up. Countries would have to work on developing trust rather than mistrust. Wouldn't that be a better direction to head for? All countries would have to want to opt in and participate. I do believe that there are positive and negative aspects of being isolated with boundaries. The only thing we people have going for us is our numbers. If we can marshal that force wisely then we might have a chance.

edit on 19-3-2015 by aboutface because: typos

posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 10:44 PM

originally posted by: Ridhya
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Except for the imperative fact that Shaw wasnt fired for disclosing that information, but for massive corruption in a telecommunications scandal.

That was shown to be a false accusation.

aniel Rudnick vs. DoD and John A. Shaw: Motion to Dismiss, 2006

The Official Defense Department report on the hijacking of the Iraqi cellular telephone tender in 2003 was the first IG related effort which uncovered major corruption in Iraq. The Daniel Sudnick vs. DoD and John A. Shaw suit has to be understood as an attempt to try to evade the clear conclusions of that official DoD report of May, 2004, on the corruption of the telecom tender in 2003. Daniel Sudnick was fired in April, 2004, as a result of a Bearing Point audit report that showed $435 Million was missing from Sudnick's Ministry of Communications account and all records destroyed. The telecom tender, worth $3 Billion, had been fixed by Nadhmi Auchi, the corrupt Iraqi billionaire, who managed, according to the report, to bribe a cross section of Iraqi, British, and American players, including Sudnick, in the process. Sudnick's basic contention in this was that his firing was prompted by Shaw as a result of rumors and ill will. Nothing could be further from the truth. The evidence, which was provided to the FBI, is incontrovertible.

Sudnick's suit was a peculiar outgrowth of a smear campaign intended to discredit the investigation and Shaw himself by raising phony allegations about Shaw and his office. The smear was orchestrated by Sudnick and his lawyer, his Baghdad deputy and lover, Bonnie Carroll, and a reporter from the LA Times, T. Christian Miller. Miller wrote a series of articles in the LA Times alleging that Shaw did not have the investigative authority to produce the report and claiming that Shaw had a sweetheart deal with an American company involved in the tender. It was like the dope peddler claiming that the cop who arrested him had taken a bribe.

At Shaw's request the report was forwarded to the Department of Justice and FBI in June, 2004, and in August, 2004, the Department of Defense issued an official press release saying that Shaw was not and had not been under investigation for anything and that he had operated entirely properly and within his area of authority and jurisdiction in his pursuit of wrongdoing in Iraq. In the interim other newpaper reports showed that Miller's stories were simply untrue. Finally, both the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense announced that the case which Sudnick raised against Shaw was closed and baseless. The FBI investigation of Auchi, Sudnick, and others, however, continues with the active cooperation of Shaw's former office at the Pentagon.


Shaw was the one who wrote the report leading to the uncovering of the telecoms scandal.

As for the reason Shaw was fired.

Shaw's dismissal from DoD occurred after complaints were raised about his conduct in office (as reported in the LA Times) and Shaw's statements, made without evidence during the 2004 Presidential Campaign while Shaw still held a senior DoD position, that the Russian government had sent Russian special forces units to Iraq before the fall of Saddam Hussein to remove WMD from Iraq to Syria. The Bush Administration, through DoD, repudiated Shaw's statements, eliminated his position within DoD and terminated his employment with DoD. From time to time, Shaw still publicly repeats the unfounded statements that have been repudiated by responsible U.S. Government officials, occasionally adding additional disinformation to embellish his stories.


Now, before you show the first paragraph in the above link as e vidence, you should continue reading to see that Sudnick's lawsuit and claims were false. Shaw was fired for coming out with the information about Russia's involvement in Iraq.

As for why the Bush administration would do that to Shaw? It is almost certain that there were deals made with the Russians back then that we will probably never know about. Now, remember that coalition forces had also found documents with evidence that the Russian government had been giving coalition troop movements and other help to Saddam's regime before, and during the war. But after some accusations being thrown around, the U.S. government really did "nothing" about it.

Why would this information about weapons being moved into Syria be hidden? It is a good excuse to go after Syria no?

Anyways, don't want to continue derailing this thread.

edit on 20-3-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct links and add comment.

posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 11:12 PM

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
The "fact" that Russia was lying can be easily shown to be false?
I do not believe that sentence means what you intended it to mean.

LOL, you are right. In my hurry I didn't see the error. Thanks for pointing it out.

posted on Mar, 25 2015 @ 05:05 PM
I miss the good ol days of nursery school indoctrination where the U.S. stood for personal freedom and as a world protector of the downtrodden... after a genocide, a few hundred years of human trafficking and slavery, and building a capitalistic empire on child labor and what amounted to slavery, or serfdom anyway.

Well, how about the post WWII days? That was a pretty good time where Uncle Sam wore a white hat... was kind to its conquered foes, rebuilt countries... that lasted for a few years, anyway... and forgetting about the bad stuff that came before and after... right after.

Sigh... I guess I just miss innocence and hope... but dangit, the U.S. was better than the rest of the feudal strongmen in power and we had good ideas when we built the country... it just got lost when regular people took over.

And those founding fathers were pretty smart... a few of them, anyway... except for being hyocrites... and... and... totalitarianism sucks! And ... and ...

Sigh... never mind.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in