It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Blinding Right winged arrogance against a great campaign in the middle east

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
With the ridiculous audacity of the Liberal Media, and the arrogant blindness of a large part of the population in the United States, and not to mention the corrupted United Nations and the stubborn celebrity bush bashing, the true threat of terrorist threats against the United States has not been seen for what it should be. We invaded Afghanistan and crushed the Taliban. The campaign in that region was very successful! We gave the Afghans their own government and restored their natural way of life as it should be! The anti- war liberals have no care whatsoever of the significance of such just causes, and rightfully so, because they’re simply right winged, and anything that bush Imposes is seen to be improper. Our President is losing support rapidly for the efforts he is making to restore peace and prosperity to the Middle East. We have taken down Saddam Hussein’s regime, and Iraq is now running elections and creating its own government! This powerful event causes much influence in the Middle East! Egypt is now having multiple party elections. Lebanon has turned over its weapons programs and they are now working with us! As I write this, U.S. is pushing Syria out of Lebanon! This is a MAJOR cause! I think it’s incredibly important that we give back the freedom of the people when they can’t gain the freedom themselves. Who are we to say we are “brutal and wrong” in invading extremist countries to liberate good from evil, compared to the barbaric and horrid methods of the regimes of Suddam Hussein and the Taliban! I can’t believe liberals would defend these people! Basically what I’m hearing is that the Liberals would rather thousands suffer and live imprisoned and tortured for their entire lives, and their children, and their children’s children, at the cost of 100’s of thousands, rather than sending In our military to defend the freedom of the world? Decide for yourself..




posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
If this is the case... spreading freedom for those who cannot achieve it on their own, why are we so selective on who we spread it to?

Why not other more brutal regimes on other continents?

And, is liberty something best savored (and retained) by those who earn it, or by those to whom it was handed?


It's troubling that arguments such as this degrade to typical "liberal" versus "conservative" separation of the extreme ends of the thought spectrum. The division of the U.S. is secure and working well by the extremely one-sided tone of your post.

The problem is not Bush, is not the "liberals" against him, but the system that has created these two polar opposites. As long as we are encouraged (brainwashed) to pick one or the other, these issues will persist.

0.02



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
If this is the case... spreading freedom for those who cannot achieve it on their own, why are we so selective on who we spread it to?


Are we so selective? We helped western Europe achieve and maintain it from WWII through the cold war. We tried to preserve Vietnams freedom (but of course liberals wanted none of that). We stand by Taiwans independence to this day, and support South Korea against Kim nutbag. And how about all of our endevors in South America? Please, our selectiveness is only limited to opertunity and a reasonable chance of success.

That does not seem so selective to me - we, a single nation of only 300 million people, have supported in just over 200 years freedom in Europe, Asia, South America, and the Middle East.



Why not other more brutal regimes on other continents?


Please name a more brutal regime on this planet then the Taliban and Saddam. Hell, most of the ME in general is absolutely brutal.



And, is liberty something best savored (and retained) by those who earn it, or by those to whom it was handed?


Best savored? I would say it is best enjoyed by those who have the least of it. It doesn't matter if a country rises up in revolution to obtain it, or is helped by the international community. If you have never been able to speak freely, to walk streets without papers, to show your face in public, or to criticize your own government - well, I believe those are the ones who would best savor their freedom.



It's troubling that arguments such as this degrade to typical "liberal" versus "conservative" separation of the extreme ends of the thought spectrum. The division of the U.S. is secure and working well by the extremely one-sided tone of your post.


Though it may be troubling, it is the fact. Liberals are ALWAYS the ones AGAINST US action. Look at history. Vietnam - liberals were against supporting our allies. In Iraq, it is liberals against taking out a CLEAR psycho dictator. It is liberals who defend Irans nuclear ambitions. Get a clue - it IS liberals vs Conservatives.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
"We stand by Taiwans independence to this day"

Mad Man, Do you really believe Bush would start a war with China over Taiwan independence? If China were to invade Taiwan, Bush and the rest of the world would denounce it as an act of aggression and talk about sanctions and consequences, but in the end nothing would be done about it.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
If this is the case... spreading freedom for those who cannot achieve it on their own, why are we so selective on who we spread it to?

I would think that one must be selective in the process. You have tyrants, you have states that fund international terrorist groups, you have states that allow terrorists to operate within them, and you have states that are irreconciable with the international community. When all those things coalesce, its practically a demand for war. Iraq was just such a state. Almost all others are still part of the international community who have not suffered under global sanctions. All other states give at least the possibility that they can be dealt with via diplomacy.

If sanctions were applied, to say, iran, over the issue of their nuclear power program, and they were willing to undergo years of crippling sanctions, over having nuke power, would that not indicate that they too need to be dealt with on a military footing, and that perhaps they were not only interested in nuke tech for electrical powe generation?

The same applies, to, say, the darfur. Sudan is ruled by despots, thugs of a foreigners who override the native population and treat them horribly. So why not act, I'd think you'd suggest. Well, I agree, why not act, the human disaster is enough. But this is not a global order that can allow that. It was already difficult enough for the US to attack an openly hostile militant powerful and thuggish country like iraq. Sudan? The International Community doesn't want ot do anything about Sudan, how can the US step in, again, so soon after the iraq war? And whats the quintessential exist strategy? In Iraq, you create the conditions for democracy, and now its literally spreding, to palestine, lebanon, and even saudi arabia and egypt. But sudan is too far removed, polticially, from these situations.
So with iraq, you have major ancilliary benefits. With Sudan, you can only stop genocide (but, again, I personally think thats enough).
So under the Bush Doctrine, you attack iraq, but not sudan, not without at least popular support in the US for it.
The same logic applies to other dictatorial regimes. You have to be selective about who you attack in order to maximise the benefits.


It's troubling that arguments such as this degrade to typical "liberal" versus "conservative"

Well thats because you're a liberal bastard. No, you're a conservative tool.... No wait,


The division of the U.S. is secure and working well by the extremely one-sided tone of your post.

Indeed, without 'bi-partisan' movements amoung the public there can't be any real bi-partisanship amoung the politicians.
What is obvious is that the US will be deeply entangled in middle eastern politics for a while and that the "Bush Doctrine" is something that is going to be have to dealt with by anyone, just like Democrats had to work within the framework of the Truman Doctrine or republicans had to work under the New Deal. Two terms and the support of the party core has ensured this. Just like in the elections, the debate has to be over how to best fight the terror wars, not if Bush did 911 or so called 'liberals' are technically traitors.

Wow that was a long rambling post.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   


With the ridiculous audacity of the Liberal Media, and the arrogant blindness of a large part of the population in the United States, and not to mention the corrupted United Nations and the stubborn celebrity bush bashing, the true threat of terrorist threats against the United States has not been seen for what it should be.


How is the media "Liberal"? I see no instances of the media propounded rationality or discerning between the Presidents prudent and moral intentions; have you? If anything, the media simply ejaculates whatever nonsense propogated by the U.S. goverment.

The arrogant blindness is due to the arrogance of your goverment and it's inability to provide an adequate form of education that allows it's citizenry to objectify world affairs. When your own goverment is propogating ignorant and misguided dogma, you can't expect much from the citizens.

How is the United Nations corrupt? You've given us no instances of corruption in the United Nations, nor have you told us what practicular faction of the United Nations is corrupt.

As for celebrities bashing President Bush, it comes with the freedoms extoled in your country. Dissention is one of those freedoms, however, the Goverment is not allowed to utilize this on thier own people.





We invaded Afghanistan and crushed the Taliban. The campaign in that region was very successful! We gave the Afghans their own government and restored their natural way of life as it should be!


You never crushed the Taliban, you simply chided them for the time being and allowed them to reinstate thier powers vis-à-vis democratic elections. And what exactly is thier natural way of life? Should it not be under the direct wing of the Qu'ran and the laws proposed by the Adaheeths, and not some western style goverment? What exactly constitutes as natural? The powerfull are still in control, regardless of the plight of this highly impoverished nation. You bombed this country indiscriminately, just as you have in many other countries all in the name of freedom, democracy, and liberty, wrote them up a mock constitution that have you and your economic thirst more soveriengty, then left pledging billions without honouring it -- as we see with the 20 billion that went "missing" in Iraq.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...




The anti- war liberals have no care whatsoever of the significance of such just causes, and rightfully so, because they’re simply right winged, and anything that bush Imposes is seen to be improper


You don't have to be a Liberal to be opposed to war, nor do you have to be a right wing reactionary to be a proponent of war. These were not just caused, this current war was highly regarded as imoral if not illegal. You may not be able to see beyond your own myopia, but that does not make everything you state just.





Our President is losing support rapidly for the efforts he is making to restore peace and prosperity to the Middle East. We have taken down Saddam Hussein’s regime, and Iraq is now running elections and creating its own government! This powerful event causes much influence in the Middle East!


Your president never had much support to begin with bar his propaganda and lies.

You goverment successfully ebetted Saddam into power two decades ago and left him there to torture his peoples subsequently; you simply needed an excuse to position yourselves geopoliticaly, and Saddams war crimes which went unoticed for decades, were a perfect reason. May I also add, who was it that sold Mr.Hussain chemical weapons which he would consequently use on his own people?

As for this being influental, well, I agree, however, it's more of a negative influence than anything. We're already seeing Irans slight agitation and thier adamancy to use Nuclear Weapons if provoked. This is not positive and productive discourse lest diplomacy.




Egypt is now having multiple party elections.


That has nothing to do with the President and his policies, this is of that countries own accord. There is no reason for America to take credit for something they had not part of.





As I write this, U.S. is pushing Syria out of Lebanon!


No, not really. The U.S is not pushing anyone, nor do I believe they have the power to push Syria out of Lebanon; did you not notice the pro-Syrian protestors that numbered around 500,000?





I think it’s incredibly important that we give back the freedom of the people when they can’t gain the freedom themselves.


Yes, let's give them a few patriot acts, no?




Who are we to say we are “brutal and wrong” in invading extremist countries to liberate good from evil, compared to the barbaric and horrid methods of the regimes of Suddam Hussein and the Taliban!


You ebetted this regimes when they were in use to you, or did you forget that? I don't see the U.S. invading any other brutal regime; Russia, China, North Korea, and countless others, do you?




Basically what I’m hearing is that the Liberals would rather thousands suffer and live imprisoned and tortured for their entire lives, and their children, and their children’s children, at the cost of 100’s of thousands, rather than sending In our military to defend the freedom of the world? Decide for yourself..


According to recent statistics, 3.9 million Americans went without food this year; wow.

Deep



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karnagemonokzide We invaded Afghanistan and crushed the Taliban. The campaign in that region was very successful! We gave the Afghans their own government and restored their natural way of life as it should be! The anti- war liberals have no care whatsoever of the significance of such just causes, and rightfully so, because they’re simply right winged, and anything that bush Imposes is seen to be improper.


I didn't see much opposition to the war in Afghanistan.
There were very few people that had a problem with that war.

It's the war in Iraq that angered many people around the world and that war still isn't going well in spite of the elections.

BTW, I think you mean left winged not right winged.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
If this is the case... spreading freedom for those who cannot achieve it on their own, why are we so selective on who we spread it to?


Are we so selective? We helped western Europe achieve and maintain it from WWII through the cold war. We tried to preserve Vietnams freedom (but of course liberals wanted none of that). We stand by Taiwans independence to this day, and support South Korea against Kim nutbag. And how about all of our endevors in South America? Please, our selectiveness is only limited to opertunity and a reasonable chance of success.


You need to go to the library, and do some serious research:

1. Europe has always been in chaos. Then the Romans, Moors, and G. Khan came along and unified the hundreds of European city states. Forming the European countries of today.

2. Then the European countries continued to fight, only the fights were fewer since there were fewer sides (instead of hundreds of seperate city states fighting, it was just 1-20 seperate countries fighting). The Dutch, Protugese, Spain, French, and British, then went through eras of having the edge from colonizing the rest of the world. Germany was the last one to try having the edge. Britian won by gaining the edge and holding it the longest. And continuing holding it. (Even though the Americans had a revolution on Britian, afterwards the British continued owning various American companies, and American land.)

3. Western Europe was simply invaded, and dictated to, by the more powerful. In this case mostly Britian and America. The same way Rome invaded, and dictated to Europe what to do.

4. The mess in Vietnam had NOTHING to do with maintaining their freedom! LOL! Look up "manefest destiny". It is what Europeans were using as their excuse to colonize, invade, the rest of the world. France invaded Vietnam. The French empire started to crumble, so the French needed to consolodate, pull back their forces, to more important areas. Vietnam was a colony of France. At the time the US and France were on good terms. France invited the USA to take over their colony in Vietnam. To keep it as a strategic European outpost in Asia.
It is because of French "manefest destiny", that America got involved in Vietnam, practicing American "manefest destiny".

5. Everything is all about power, power, and more power. The USA is in Afganistan because that is where the majority of the world's Opium is grown. In addition to the natural gas reserves there. In addition to being an easy outpost to take over, to have a strategic presence in the part of the world near the majority of current oil production.
The freekin Taliban lived in the USA on Bush's ranch for the past 30 years! They constantly visited the Bush family! The Taliban co-owned various buisnesses with the Bush family for the past 30 some odd years!

6. Iraq is 100% about the oil! Yeesh! It has nothing to do about freeing the Irag people from a dictator the USA put into power in the first place! LOL! If the USA "wanted to free the Iraq people" then the USA would NEVER haved taken the freedoms away from the Iraq people in the first place by putting in a dictatorship goverment decades ago!

It is amazing how too many on purpose forget their American history. Refuse to look up American history.



Originally posted by American Mad Man
That does not seem so selective to me - we, a single nation of only 300 million people, have supported in just over 200 years freedom in Europe, Asia, South America, and the Middle East.


The USA was responsible for taking away the freedoms from the countries it freed LOL!

1. The dictators in Europe, including Hitler, and more, were funded by the USA! F---in go to google.com, type in "Prescot Bush, Hitler" and click on the links! The info is still around. The American president at the time was sooo sick of the USA creating European dictators that he had to pass a law saying "You are not allowed to make new enemies. You are not allowed to help enemies of the USA!".

2. Asia was colonized by allies of the USA. Do you know what a colony is? It's when one country makes another country its slave. Ever here about the Opium Wars? The USA, and Britian, on purpose f--- Asia, tearing down Asian goverments. The biggest example is what they did to China. On purpose growing illegal drugs in the middle east, then smuggling them into China, to destroy the Chinese goverment. Then installing new goverments in Asia backed by the USA and Britian.

3. I posted already that the dictators in the middle east were put into power by the USA, and Britian. Hell, in the 1980's Saddam Hussen was given a brand new Nuclear Reactor by America and France. Then America paid Israel to bomb it. (Israel is funded yearly by billions of American money in case you don't know.). If the USA wanted to know if Saddam had or has WMD's all the USA has to do is check their own reciepts.

4. South America... OMG! They are sooo owned by America, Britian, and Europe. All countries are former colonies of Europe. They now are yessmen to America, and Europe.

5. Hey, you left out Africa. Africa too was colonized by Europe.


Originally posted by American Mad Man


Why not other more brutal regimes on other continents?


Please name a more brutal regime on this planet then the Taliban and Saddam. Hell, most of the ME in general is absolutely brutal.


The hundreds of brutal dictators in every African country. Don't tell me you haven't heard about the incredible mass genocides in Africa? There's even a new book out about the thousands of childern roaming the lands, with no families. The brutal dictators in China, N. Korea, and other Asian countries. The Brutal dictators in S. America, Cent. America.



Originally posted by American Mad Man


And, is liberty something best savored (and retained) by those who earn it, or by those to whom it was handed?


Best savored? I would say it is best enjoyed by those who have the least of it. It doesn't matter if a country rises up in revolution to obtain it, or is helped by the international community. If you have never been able to speak freely, to walk streets without papers, to show your face in public, or to criticize your own government - well, I believe those are the ones who would best savor their freedom.


Look at what history says. If a group is handed freedom, then they're less likely to keep it. They'll always need help from their "masters". They'll always have to rely on them. (S. Korea continously need American forces present to survive. S. Vietnam continously needed American forces present to survive. W. Germany (during cold war) continously needed American forces present to survive. Afganistan, and Iraq, continously need American forces present to survive. )
If a group fights for their own freedom, their own liberty, using their own resources, they will keep it. They won't need to rely on outside help.

You want another example that blows a hole in your point? Ever hear of Ho Chi Minh? Did you know he lived in New York City? Did you know after the French pulled out of Vietnam, he came to the USA asking for aid? Asking for help to make his country free? But the USA looked and said "We don't see any oil, natural gas, diamonds, gold, in your country. F--- your country!". So Ho Chi Minh went to the Russians and Chinese for aid, and got it. Then the USA got mad that "the commies" helped them. "We gotta stop the spread of communisim! American manefest destiny must continue!".



Originally posted by American Mad Man


It's troubling that arguments such as this degrade to typical "liberal" versus "conservative" separation of the extreme ends of the thought spectrum. The division of the U.S. is secure and working well by the extremely one-sided tone of your post.


Though it may be troubling, it is the fact. Liberals are ALWAYS the ones AGAINST US action. Look at history. Vietnam - liberals were against supporting our allies. In Iraq, it is liberals against taking out a CLEAR psycho dictator. It is liberals who defend Irans nuclear ambitions. Get a clue - it IS liberals vs Conservatives.


I got 4 words for you:

Skull and Bones Society.

Know what that means right? There is no such thing as liberals and conservatives! It is not liberals vs conservatives... it never has been. Why? Cuz both are members of the SAME f---- secret society! If your members of the same society, your taking orders from the same master.
Have a goodnight.


[edit on 11-3-2005 by OpenSecret2012]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   

If the USA wanted to know if Saddam had or has WMD's all the USA has to do is check their own reciepts.


I fan of bill hicks i see....
Great post. You get my above vote this month.

[edit on 11-3-2005 by wang]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   
Officer! Arrest that man! He stole my post!

SO stole my post and should be held accountable.


Okay, so he was quicker on the draw, he had certain advantages! It wasn't a fair fight!

Seriously, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Partisanship is a blight on the land. We need unity right now. The nation faces unprecedented challenges, and like the old saying goes, "United we Stand, Divided we Fall."

SO - for an astute observation, and a rapidly deployed one at that.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 04:08 AM
link   
SO, I have seen you post a few threads lately about the polarisation of America, about how the divide between conservatves and lberals is being pushed ever wider. My question is, considering the huge philosophical difference between liberal and conservative thought, do you really feel this divde is artificial?



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 05:28 AM
link   
1) The (US & UK) 'media' is not liberal, it is actually deeply pro-establishment and right-wing.

Repeatedly claiming the media is 'liberal' despite all evidence to the contrary is simply a pretty obvious right-wing tactic and no more.

2) We'll discard all the peripheral nonsense and get to the heart of this, Iraq......

.....which, sadly, is very much a 'work in progress' and about as far from a 'success' as it is possible to be right now.

3)Syria? That's hardly cut and dried either.

I'd say that very much depends on what Israel and her proxies do next.
(which applies to much of the rest of it all too, Iran especially; although that would also depend on whatever direct action the US might be considering and trying to wind itself up for too)

4) I take it you insist that this is all only about US actions and that no one but the US has been doing anything to help matters either then, hmmm?



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
And thought out ones at that?

Isn't feeding trolls bad for board health? Can no one else envision the breathless mindlessness with which the thread author composed in? It's really time for civility & cordial erudition to cease being offered to the Freeper influx....simply trampling under foot would suffice.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuietRenegade
"We stand by Taiwans independence to this day"

Mad Man, Do you really believe Bush would start a war with China over Taiwan independence? If China were to invade Taiwan, Bush and the rest of the world would denounce it as an act of aggression and talk about sanctions and consequences, but in the end nothing would be done about it.


Are you so sure?

It would be China going to war with the US, not the other way around. China would be attacking a US ally.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
3. Western Europe was simply invaded, and dictated to, by the more powerful. In this case mostly Britian and America. The same way Rome invaded, and dictated to Europe what to do.


I guess you forgot about a little 20th century happening called "the Cold War" in which the US led NATO alliance protected western Europe from the opressive Soviet Union.

And I need to go to a library? Get a clue dude - the US didnt invade squat - we were MILITARY ALLIES PROTECTING WESTERN EUROPE AGAINST RUSSIA.



4. The mess in Vietnam had NOTHING to do with maintaining their freedom! LOL! Look up "manefest destiny". It is what Europeans were using as their excuse to colonize, invade, the rest of the world. France invaded Vietnam.


Was this the US? I am not talking about France buddy.



The French empire started to crumble, so the French needed to consolodate, pull back their forces, to more important areas. Vietnam was a colony of France. At the time the US and France were on good terms. France invited the USA to take over their colony in Vietnam. To keep it as a strategic European outpost in Asia.
It is because of French "manefest destiny", that America got involved in Vietnam, practicing American "manefest destiny".


Bull, the reason the US was involved in Vietnam was CONTAINMENT - in this case, the US was again protecting the south against the communist north. It had nothing to do with a strategic outpost in Asia - the US already had plenty of them in South Korea and Japan.

Manefest destiny was part of the Monroe doctrine - you know, the 1820's era! Vietnam was in the 1960's/70's - thats a 150 year gap there!



5. Everything is all about power, power, and more power. The USA is in Afganistan because that is where the majority of the world's Opium is grown. In addition to the natural gas reserves there. In addition to being an easy outpost to take over, to have a strategic presence in the part of the world near the majority of current oil production.


Ahh yes, and a bunch of airliners crashing into the WTC and pentagon had nothing to do with it? I can't believe I am responding to this...



The freekin Taliban lived in the USA on Bush's ranch for the past 30 years! They constantly visited the Bush family! The Taliban co-owned various buisnesses with the Bush family for the past 30 some odd years!


And now we go off the deep end...



6. Iraq is 100% about the oil! Yeesh! It has nothing to do about freeing the Irag people from a dictator the USA put into power in the first place! LOL! If the USA "wanted to free the Iraq people" then the USA would NEVER haved taken the freedoms away from the Iraq people in the first place by putting in a dictatorship goverment decades ago!


Saddam posed a dangerous threat to the US. He VIOLATED HIS PEACE TREATY. WHEN YOU VIOLATE A PEACE TREATY, YOU ARE AT WAR. Or is that too hard to understand? Regardless of all the oil in Iraq, the reason we went to war was because he did not live up to his end of the peace treaty, which is why we didn't kick him the hell out in GWI!



It is amazing how too many on purpose forget their American history. Refuse to look up American history.


Like American manefest destiny? You clearly do not understand that that was a century and a half before the period you were talking about and was interupted by a large period of isolationism.



1. The dictators in Europe, including Hitler, and more, were funded by the USA! F---in go to google.com, type in "Prescot Bush, Hitler" and click on the links! The info is still around. The American president at the time was sooo sick of the USA creating European dictators that he had to pass a law saying "You are not allowed to make new enemies. You are not allowed to help enemies of the USA!".


Ohhh yes - all of the worlds problems are because of the USA and Bush specifically! Please.

Last time I checked, it was perfectly legal to invest in Germany at the time. In fact, Germany had the worlds greatest boom of the period - he invested money in what seemed to be a smart place.

Guess what - so did both of my grandfathers! And they both also served in WWII.



2. Asia was colonized by allies of the USA. Do you know what a colony is? It's when one country makes another country its slave. Ever here about the Opium Wars? The USA, and Britian, on purpose f--- Asia, tearing down Asian goverments. The biggest example is what they did to China. On purpose growing illegal drugs in the middle east, then smuggling them into China, to destroy the Chinese goverment. Then installing new goverments in Asia backed by the USA and Britian.


Please show me a US colony in Asia. A colony - not a military base, a colony. There aren't any. You are talking about stuff that happened mostly in the 1800's. That does not aply to the here and now.



3. I posted already that the dictators in the middle east were put into power by the USA, and Britian. Hell, in the 1980's Saddam Hussen was given a brand new Nuclear Reactor by America and France. Then America paid Israel to bomb it. (Israel is funded yearly by billions of American money in case you don't know.). If the USA wanted to know if Saddam had or has WMD's all the USA has to do is check their own reciepts.


And again, we backed Saddam because Iran was at the time a greater threat. Is that so hard to understand? Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils.



4. South America... OMG! They are sooo owned by America, Britian, and Europe. All countries are former colonies of Europe. They now are yessmen to America, and Europe.


Really? Owned by the US? Keep Europe out of this - I am talking about the US here. Last time I checked we gave up the panama canal and do not have any land in south america.



5. Hey, you left out Africa. Africa too was colonized by Europe.


Not by the US, again - I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT EUROPE.



The hundreds of brutal dictators in every African country. Don't tell me you haven't heard about the incredible mass genocides in Africa? There's even a new book out about the thousands of childern roaming the lands, with no families. The brutal dictators in China, N. Korea, and other Asian countries. The Brutal dictators in S. America, Cent. America.


Africa - last time I remembered we got Adid. I seem to remember a great book and good movie about it - where we had about 20 Rangers and Delta force guys - our Elite and ELITE OF THE ELITE - killed trying to get that nut bag warlord.

And again, you have to remember, the situation has to present it's self to have a reasonable chance of success. Going into most African countries would be a waste because they are simply to chaotic to help.




Look at what history says. If a group is handed freedom, then they're less likely to keep it. They'll always need help from their "masters". They'll always have to rely on them. (S. Korea continously need American forces present to survive. S. Vietnam continously needed American forces present to survive. W. Germany (during cold war) continously needed American forces present to survive. Afganistan, and Iraq, continously need American forces present to survive. )
If a group fights for their own freedom, their own liberty, using their own resources, they will keep it. They won't need to rely on outside help.


All of those countries illustrate my point. Those countries have their liberty protected by the US. We hold them up, not down. South Korea can't stand up against the North BECAUSE they have freedom, and Kim can simply draft his million man army from the people. Otherwise, south Korea is fine. Sure we help them - but why not? They are a good country and face an evil dictator trying to conquor them.

Germany, again, faced RUSSIA - you can not contend that they had any chance of survival without the US. They simply didn't have the ability to match the USSR. Thats why they joined NATO.

And please Afghanastan and Iraq are new borns - of course they need our help. In due time they will become more and more self sufficient.



You want another example that blows a hole in your point? Ever hear of Ho Chi Minh? Did you know he lived in New York City? Did you know after the French pulled out of Vietnam, he came to the USA asking for aid? Asking for help to make his country free? But the USA looked and said "We don't see any oil, natural gas, diamonds, gold, in your country. F--- your country!". So Ho Chi Minh went to the Russians and Chinese for aid, and got it. Then the USA got mad that "the commies" helped them. "We gotta stop the spread of communisim! American manefest destiny must continue!".


So we wouldn't give him free handouts and only got involved when communism was going to spread. Your point? It was the cold war, and the US does in fact have a finite budget. Of course we didn't want to just give money away. Of course we got involved when Russia did. This doesn't do anything to "blow a hole in my point" - the US was involved when the spread of communism became an issue. And again, the US is protecting freedom from communism.




I got 4 words for you:

Skull and Bones Society.


LOL! Sorry, I am not affraid of them.



Know what that means right? There is no such thing as liberals and conservatives! It is not liberals vs conservatives... it never has been. Why? Cuz both are members of the SAME f---- secret society! If your members of the same society, your taking orders from the same master.


If there is no liberal vs Conservative then how come most people identify with one or the other? Skull and Bones is the most over hyped garbage. Listen, I personally KNOW people who went to Yale and are probably in it because of who their parents are. They are normal people that happened to join a very exclusive club that amounts to a social network.

It's not much different from a frat brother getting you a job except your frat brother happens to be the president every once in a while.

Does every club you join have members with the same political thoughts? No - of course not. Thus just like in a secret society you will have members who have different outlooks on life.



Have a goodnight.



You too



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join