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.


America has been Defeated - US Professor

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:41 PM

Originally posted by spacedoubt
You must ALWAYS consider the source of a piece of information, when arguing it's validity.
It usually it's SOP on ATS, if I'm not mistaken.
How many times has someone linked a website with supporting information, only to get
a hard time, because the source may not be reputable?

Absolutely agree. Thing is, some people have a reputation for only doing one thing and that is discount anything and everything that does not come from sources they themselves deem valid.

That is NOT the purpose of pointing out the source. I'd much rather that someone cogently argue counter points to the content of a story than simply having someone say (for example) "It's Rense - therefore it's all bullcrap" without even reading the article.

In the end everybody bends and mangles the truth (if there is such a thing as "objective" truth anyway) to make their point or to fit their theory. I don't recall geopolitical analysis being an exact science.

And could someone, please, PLEASE, explain to us WHAT EXACTLY IS AN "ANTI-AMERICAN AGENDA"? Sounds like Orwellian newspeak if I ever heard any.

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:46 PM
Anti-American agenda.
I only have my own personal definition.

But it's something like Self-loathing.
Ashamed to be so successful.
I believe it has Socialistic/Communistic undertones.

And remember. Thats my opinion!

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Gools
And could someone, please, PLEASE, explain to us WHAT EXACTLY IS AN "ANTI-AMERICAN AGENDA"? Sounds like Orwellian newspeak if I ever heard any.

"Orwellian newspeak" is quite relative, but using Google to its fullest and simple extent is not.

Noam Chomsky falls right into the same anti-America/American/Americanism crowd as the likes of Manning Marable, Howard Zinn, etc., etc., etc.


[edit on 31-5-2006 by Seekerof]

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Echtelion
because he's being even remotely critical to the US administration.

You didn't read his bio, did you? He's not 'even remotely' critical.
He's absolutely critical of America. No 'remotely' about it.

People like that ....

'people like that'?
Your rant was a load of bunk.
But whatever. You are fortunate you can have your opinion
and that you are free to express it. A whole lot of the world
isn't able to do that.

In order to evaluate what was said, the author of those statements
is indeed open to evaluation. If the author turns out to be credible
then it lends weight to the statement. If he's a loon; then it takes
away from his statement. That's acceptable and expected in debate.

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:04 PM
I don't like how America did a pre-emptive war in Iraq with bogus info. In that way I feel America has lost a moral ground.

But I also do not see millions of people crossing the border with Iran for a better life, as people do to come to America. That speaks louder than anything to me on that people just want an opportunity at life, and where the best place in the world is to get it.

I am proud of the American troops put in harm way, but they are there for poorly managed political reasons.

I see waste in the big corporations making bogus profits in Iraq. When if they did a Mashall Plan type thing with huge security things could be different.

The war on terror is a bunch of losers killed some innocent people in NY. If you want America out of the middle east, you don't kill so many Americans. Bin Laden wanted to hurt the people who support governments he did not like. Well guess what now the US is now more involved. Woooo Hooooo good thinking there.

If he used the million of dollars that his family made of the infidel Americans for peaceful ways to change his government......Nahhhhhh that would be to easy as Ganhdi and MLK are bad examples.

Everyone wants to solve there problems by blaming someone else. And to get even by using violence. Hey if someone attacks me I will fight back too, so in my opinion the Taliban got what it deserved for harboring the attackers.

I guess we all will continue to not be evloved until you can get a package from and not pop any of the bubble wrap. Until then violence will be the solution to problems.

Hey I still pop that stuff, so I am not there yet.

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Luxifero
accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court

We are going to hand our sovereignty over to a bunch of foreigners? Nope.

sign and carry forward the Kyoto protocols

Why? The entire planet isn't onboard with it and even if they were
it would be bad for American business and economics. Nope.

let the UN take the lead in international crises

Why? Because they did such an 'excellent' job with Rwanda?
Because they did such an excellent job protecting the Kurds and
Iraqis from Saddam? Hundreds of thousands of them dead while
Saddam lined his pockets, and many of the pockets at the UN,
with Oil For Food money stolen from the Iraqis. The UN couldn't
lead itself out of a paper bag. Another Nope.

rely on diplomatic and economic measures rather than
military ones in confronting terror;

And who exactly would we put economic santions on to stop UBL?
Diplomatic measure? With who? Those that say 'all infidels must die'.

keep to the traditional interpretation of the UN Charter


give up the Security Council veto

Oh .. and let Syria and France run the Security Council? Sure. Syria
is a terrorist nation and France was bought off by Saddam. They aren't
trustworthy to be let run amuk without a safety veto in place.

"a decent respect for the opinion of mankind,"

Sure. We have respect the right of other countries to have opinions,
more so then they respect our opinions. But by golly their opinions are
NOT going to run this country. If someone in Germany doesn't like our
politics... tough cookies. It's our country and we will run it the way we like.

cut back sharply on military spending

So our enemies could run right over us, right? Considering the fact that
we have been picking up a bulk of many other countries defense which in
turn has freed them up to spend more on their own countries .. I'd say
absolutely ... let everyone else start spending their own $$$ on defense.
The tax money we would save on not taking care of everyone else's
defense would be great. Leave ya'll to your own polyanna vision of
the world. Good luck with that.

[edit on 5/31/2006 by FlyersFan]

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:42 PM
And join the Communist Party.

Man, this Hate America croud is pouring it on. Bush caused katrina, earthquakes and tornados too. Ha HA HA HA

I like a great laugh.

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link read this and you will see way we will never secure the Mexican or Canadian Border

We are soon to be another EU.

Then he will have to say that the American Union has been defeated.

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:33 PM
WE may never secure our borders....If you mean the US govt.

If you mean WE, the People of the US...You might be wrong.

Send a Brick...i did, On behalf of my mother in law, for mothers day, at her request.
NYT article on Bricks for the Border

It's interesting how many have been received already, before a lot of press...I sent mine to Harry Reid.

If you don't want to wait for the Govt, support the Minuteman project.
Thats what we are really about. Independence.

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Seekerof
Noam Chomsky falls right into the same anti-America/American/Americanism crowd as the likes of Manning Marable, Howard Zinn, etc., etc., etc.


[edit on 31-5-2006 by Seekerof]

I don't know who this Chomsky guy is, unpopular I can see. What I want to know is, is what he says true? Unpleasant truths are still true.

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 04:51 PM
Lets say I just don't like Chomsky's criticism of U.S. going to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and that his suggestion is that we should just sit here and accept the attacks and understand the enemy as if they care.

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 06:19 PM
There are a number major conspiracies on some serious internal divisions in the US government that could lead to a break down of the US as we know it.

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 07:14 PM
I've thought this for a while now. I believe we have seen the USA's high-point. It has been and gone and was squandered by Bush. What idiot could still support him? Oh, forgot about Seekerof.

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 07:29 PM
Please, once again, let's discuss the topic and not each other.

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 08:23 PM

Originally posted by rizla
I've thought this for a while now. I believe we have seen the USA's high-point. It has been and gone and was squandered by Bush. What idiot could still support him? Oh, forgot about Seekerof.

The U.S. high point has yet to come, I believe. Lyndon Johnson slaughtered thousands of American troops and the country didn't crash. Carter put us through some terrible times (terrible economy, terrible military, terrible foreign policy). Nixon was good for this country in that he allowed the Vietnam War to end, Bush Sr. was good in that he supplied the military with loads of $$$, Clinton APPEARED good because he was liberal and the media loves liberals; in reality, he was a draft dodger who skipped out on the Vietnam War; he assigned an anti-military Secretary of Defense, Les Craven, who caused the results of the 1992 Somalia incident, he tried to sign the U.S. up to the International Criminal Court, and he also refused to go after Osama bin Laden back during the 1992 WTC bombings. Had he done so, perhaps 9/11 would never have happened.

His wife, Hillary, tried to socialize the health care system fo this nation (never mind that socialized health care for much smaller economies still wasn't as good) and that failed miserably.

Bush is one of the few decent presidents we've actually had in recent years IMO, and whether you like him or not, all this stuff about how he has "destroyed the United States," "ended the high point of the U.S.," literally ludicrous. He didn't take us into WWIII, and he hasn't done anything illegal (yes, Iraq is perfectly legal, as Saddam broke the cease-fire. That was present before the U.N. in the list of reasons to invade Iraq).

[edit on 31-5-2006 by WheelsRCool]

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:04 PM

Originally posted by WheelsRCool

The U.S. high point has yet to come, I believe.

If you mean forward projection of military power, I agree. There's much more to come from the US.

If you mean economic domination, the US has run into a wall. The same wall everyone else is running into... resource depletion. Namely oil. It's always been about the oil. The first world war was not caused by the assasination of a Duke who's name nobody can remember. It was started over the newly discovered oil resources in the Middle East. Iraq to be specific. That's where the very first troops were deployed. To stop the Berlin-Bagdad railroad (and extension of the famous Orient Express line) that was to give the Germans an exclusive line of access to the rich markets of the Ottoman Empire. Most people forget the desert wars from their "WWI" and "WWII" history. The Ottoman Empire needed to be taken out to ensure free access to the oil. Follow the money and the rest is history, but not the one thought in schools funded and controlled by the State.

I agree Carter was not a great statesman and he had his problems but you can't say he didn't inherit a huge mess at a time when the United States had just peaked in domestic oil production, closed the gold window and had to start paying for imported oil, thus starting the transformation from being the world's greatest lender nation to the world's greatest debtor nation. I know that when I borrow money I'm the bank's bitch, not the other way around. The rise of OPEC, the Iranian revolution and the US-Saudi petrodollar deal also happened during the 70's that people are fond of remembering as bad times... "malaise" and all that.

Nixon allowed the war to end? Maybe, but the only President to be actually run out of office can hardly be called a good thing for the country. I guess it took such a looser as a leader for Americans to finally accept calling it quits on Vietnam.

I wasn't a fan of Clinton either. He and his wife are a little too "shifty and rich" for my tastes, and have a very shady past (as do lots of politicians) but your point on him not going after Ossama is simply wrong. Recall that at the time, the big conspiracy theory was that it was all for Monica. Wag the Dog had just been released by Hollywood and a good part of the population jumped to conclusions. But those attacks were on suspected Al-Quaeda locations before most people had ever heard of who they were.

As for wanting to sign onto the ICC... so what? If you have war criminals in your military (ATSNN: Haditha Massacre Confirmed) don't you want them brought to justice?

But as for your comment on W not having done anything illegal... well... I can't help you. :shk:

[edit on 5/31/2006 by Gools]

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:13 PM

Bush Sr. was good in that he supplied the military with loads of $$$

You're aware that Nixon was run out of office in disgrace for using the US intellegence apparatus against his domestic political opponents, right? That Bush Sr. presided over the biggest defense cuts in modern US history, right? (Not that he was wrong in doing so, the Cold War having ended and all. Smart cookie, that Bush 1, unlike some other Bush's I can think of.) That Clinton (as much as I can't stand the guy) was the first President to balance the federal budget in decades?

I could go on, but I'm starting to think trying to debate this stuff is a waste of time... people believe what they want to believe, who am I to let mere facts stand in the way?

[edit on 5/31/06 by xmotex]

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:33 PM
Bush Sr. provided the military with much needed funding; once the Cold War ended, he cut back on the military spending a good deal which was very reasonable. Clinton, however, went ahead and further cut back the military spending, essentially slashing it.

And Nixon's being run out of office is irrelevant, IMO, as no administration is guilt-free. His just got caught. Granted, he still did something wrong, but his moral rights make up for it in my opinion. He was actually a decent leader in that he decided to allowe northern Vietnam to be attacked, which ended the war (had this been done in the start, the Vietnam War would have been far shorter, but Johnson prevented it). He essentially saved the lives of potentially thousands more Americans, as he got the war to end.

It is argued by some that he illegally bombed Cambodia. Regardless of whether it was technically illegal, he did so because Northern Vietnam had violated the neutrality of Cambodia and was using it as a base to attack U.S. troops (who could not retaliate because of the neutrality which was contiually being honored by the U.S.). This resulted in thousands of troops deaths, and Nixon knew the only way to stop this was to open Cambodia up to bombing.

So Nixon qualifies as a decent character in my book.

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:36 PM

Originally posted by rizla
I've thought this for a while now. I believe we have seen the USA's high-point. It has been and gone and was squandered by Bush. What idiot could still support him? Oh, forgot about Seekerof.

Wow rizla didn't anyone teach you too play nice. As far as the US declining in power, maybe maybe not. If the US does actually head into a deep decline that would have an upside in the long run. We could bring all of our soldiers home from hellholes like Iraq or wherever Bush(and Clinton before him)sent them. So we can then focus on domestic problems.

So if another hurricane strikes a poor backwater part of the US we can deal with that and Europe and/or Canada can take care of the rest of the world. Since just about every euro on this board thinks they can do a better job I say have at it.

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 10:09 PM
As you can see below, Bush 1 cut defense spending somewhat more than Clinton did, despite costs incurred by the Gulf War (see the spike in FY92), and Clinton actually cut it much more gradually than Bush 1:

US defense spending in billions of adjusted [2002] dollars:
1988 426.4
1989 427.7
1990 409.7
1991 358.1
1992 379.5
1993 358.6
1994 338.6
1995 321.6
1996 $307.4
1997 305.3
1998 296.7
1999 298.4
2000 311.7
2001 307.8

For more go see this link.

The biggest cuts in defense spending excluding the huge drop after WW2 were made by Nixon (largely due to the end of the Vietnam War). They kept going down through Ford until the Carter administration, which contrary to what you might think, increased defense spending every single year. They continued rising during the Reagan years, and the next big drop was during the first Bush administration, whose cuts would have been much larger if it hadn't been for the Gulf War. They have grown to Cold War levels again under Bush 2.

Those are the numbers... they don't reflect the mythology you'll read in the right wing blogosphere (other than the Reagan era buildup, which actually began under Carter), or for that matter silly liberal rhetoric that equates Democrats with peace and flower-power and all that good stuff, but as they say money talks and BS walks...

[edit on 5/31/06 by xmotex]

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in