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.

 

Ahmadinejad says Israel will soon disappear

page: 15
14
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   

The evil regimes of the world come and go, and few remain in power for very long.


And yet US foreign policy have been expansionist for more than a century the same way as wish the Dutch, German and British policies were. You may be referring to singular individuals but modern systems are crafted so that the few elected officials are rarely able to change the nature of course of system and even more rarely interested in doing so.


Most collapse in self destruction, only to be born again in a new from. The IC's have had their run, but in my opinion, they are about to run into their demise.


For someone who does not even seem to understand how they function you do seem awfully confident in their early demise. Maybe you should those of us who are reading about this issue how we feel about their current and future power?


How much longer do you think radical Islam will survive? I think Islam will eventually mellow out like Catholicism did, or at least that is what I hope.


Radical Islam will prosper as long as it's so well funded by the same western powers that are claiming to be arming in response. It's one of the older tricks in the imperial book and yet here i am trying to educate you about something that should be very self evident to students in this area.

Frankly you should go back to your books and hopefully that will save me the hours it takes to type up these responses and allow me to further educate myself instead of spending time on someone who seems more interested in clinging to old prejudice and wilful ignorance than learning about constructive alternatives that would allow greater freedoms for all.


In conclusion the people of the world are doing their best to survive the best efforts of those wealthy few who wants ever more control and the fact that you are aiding in spread of the same old propaganda, of some people being inherently less able and deluded, ( i presume you think your own religion is 'superior'; those aircraft carriers must make you feel really hot, right?) means that you are not only not helping yourself but misinforming the great many who are even more ignorant and misinformed than yourself.

Stellar




posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DJMessiah
 

Here is a link which Iran is urging muslims to attack Israel with nuclear weapons.
Attack Israel with nukes
The quote is:

One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".


Here is another one:
Destroy Israel

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel.


How about another one:
Israel's destruction

Iran Revolutionary Guard chief : “Hezbollah will soon destroy Israel”


I could go on and on and on..........but what's the point?
I'm sure you will find some reason to ignore these comments and pretend Iran is some innocent little flower.



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
holy bejeesus the people on that website are more cracked out then we are here at ATS



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


also - Ahmadinnerjacket is a posturing mouthpiece - he is not the go-to-guy in Iran - Ali Khamenei is the main man in Iran and th real power...but I guess he's not as colorful so we don't hear much about him in the media...



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


You claim "And yet US foreign policy have been expansionist for more than a century", when the reality is that maybe U.S. has been expansionist for the last fifty years, but not much longer. If you were really so well informed, and understood what you were talking about, you might realize that the only form U.S. expansionism could be described as taking is through corporate expansion. The reality is that U.S. corporations were more aggressive and had more power to be aggressive a hundred years ago, when the U.S. government was fairly isolationist. If your concept of the way of the manipulators was as good as you arrogantly claim, you would realize that even U.S. based international corporations really don't care about the U.S., and prefer to undermine the U.S. government.

The major players in the middle east, pushing radical Islam, are pretty much in alliance with U.S. corporate powers. They are pushing the cultural war. What part of circle jerk don't you get?

The main effort of the Muslim culture seems to be aimed at claiming victimhood status, and that just isn't going to work towards developing peace between the two cultures, and only plays into the hands of the power mongering NWO IC's.

There are very legitimate beefs between the two cultures. There are two ways these problems can be solved. One is an open and honest dialogue, which history has shown not to be mankind's best ability. The other is through a succession of wars. What approach do you want to take. If you have something intelligent to say, please say it.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
You claim "And yet US foreign policy have been expansionist for more than a century", when the reality is that maybe U.S. has been expansionist for the last fifty years, but not much longer.


And by more than a century i actually mean two centuries but since i am doing my best not overwhelm you with the truth i stuck to one presuming that you could at least discover expansionist American wars such as the Spanish-American war and all the territories the US gained by attacking a nearly prostrate Spain. Please open a history book and just see what even convention suggests before you claim that i am the one who 'makes stuff up'.


If you were really so well informed, and understood what you were talking about, you might realize that the only form U.S. expansionism could be described as taking is through corporate expansion.


Please speak for yourself as if you were informed at all you would understand corporatism is a relatively modern addition and development where the US were in fact ahead of other imperial powers in understanding that there are other empires that are far too well armed to take on directly. Corporatism is just covered imperialism and it should not be discussed in a widely different context.


The reality is that U.S. corporations were more aggressive and had more power to be aggressive a hundred years ago, when the U.S. government was fairly isolationist.


The US government were never isolationist but since the American people really didn't want much to do with the rest of the world the government understood that taking on other empires might very well be met with disastrous consequences for them; the British had after all already burnt the 'white house' once. US corporate expansion were the only way the US could directly intervene in the affairs of the European empires and that's exactly what they then proceeded to until the empires had so exhausted each other by infighting and occupation wars that the US could start picking off pieces for itself.


If your concept of the way of the manipulators was as good as you arrogantly claim, you would realize that even U.S. based international corporations really don't care about the U.S., and prefer to undermine the U.S. government.


And if you actually read some of my posts on this forum before presuming to understand me you would know that i share your views on that. The government of the too a large extent serve the corporations and the corporations do not often serve the US government and almost never the American citizenry.


The major players in the middle east, pushing radical Islam, are pretty much in alliance with U.S. corporate powers. They are pushing the cultural war. What part of circle jerk don't you get?


If by alliance you mean that radical islam has it's countries devastated and it's followers killed while American and European corporations prosper then yes, i agree with you. If you wish to suggest that 'radical islam' is some kind of major player on the world scene with the ability to force alliances on American and European money interest you are severely misinformed.


The main effort of the Muslim culture seems to be aimed at claiming victimhood status, and that just isn't going to work towards developing peace between the two cultures, and only plays into the hands of the power mongering NWO IC's.


The problem with the theory is that THEY ARE the victims of horrific aggression by not only their so called leaders ( who have far more in common with European and American money than with Islam) but also by all the agencies of the west who are always in the business of seeking enemies to arm against thus getting away with their massive tax payer subsidies. 'Radical Islam' is one of the very few paths left open to Muslims to express their political will trough and we should really be concentrating on those who had the power to close all the alternative expressions of the progressive ideologies that exists in the majority of all people.


There are very legitimate beefs between the two cultures. There are two ways these problems can be solved.


Such as? Actually there is only ONE problem by which to solve problems and all the others are simply distractions to keep us perpetually at each others throats squabbling over left over resources.


One is an open and honest dialogue, which history has shown not to be mankind's best ability.


And i should have seen this coming! A person who does not even know the last hundred years worth of headline history attempts to inform me that humanity has some kind of fatal flaw....


The other is through a succession of wars.


This is the route of those who attempts to dominate others by force of arms and since there is no self interested reason to risk your life if you are already doing ok in regular life it's obvious why they must oppress us and keep us poor.


What approach do you want to take.


The one where the people of this planet are allowed to choose true representatives so that we can discuss and resolve the problems we all face?


If you have something intelligent to say, please say it.


Ditto.
At this point i would settle for some conventional truths as you are clearly unable to arrive at statements that are either true or intelligent. It may not be your fault that you are this badly misinformed, it normally isn't, but since you are apparently content to bash away at your keyboard without reflection on the conventional views of history and knowledge that i have laid out here it would be far easier if you just opened some books and stuck to what is sourced instead of what you presume to be true.

Stellar

[edit on 4-7-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


That's a pretty biased view of the Spanish American war. The U.S. got into the war supporting Cuban Independence, as the Spaniards were brutally oppressing the Cubam resurection. After the war, the U.S. annexed the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Phillipines. When U.S. moved forces into the Phillipines they found themselves in the middle of a Phillipinpo insurrection for independence. The U.S. fought the rebel troops, taking control of the islands, but in doing so, they became guilty of the same attrocities that the Spanish were committing in Spain. The war was very unpopular with the people of the U.S. who were against the violent oppression. As per a great deal of U.S. history, the desires of the wealthy and the will of the people were in coflict, and the will of the people won out once again. This eventually led to Phillipino independence. This is the last time the U.S. government has tried to take control of a nation or a colony without the goal of etablishing a new independent nation, or some other trick, to fool the people into supporting the war.

As far as the ability of the U.S. to project power abroad, you greatly underestimate the ability of U.S. forces. While we have gotten into some quagmires our military success has only been limited by our willinging to slaughter our enemy. We have also had successes in accomplishing very good things in this world. The only thing that limits the U.S. military is the will of the U.S. people to back military efforts.

The activities of corporations have been going on for centuries now. What makes U.S. corporations so powerful is the power of the U.S. economy behind them.

AS far as Muslims being the victims, that is nonsense. Muslim aggression has been one of its most singular characteristics since the conception of the religion, and efforts to violently expand the religion of Islam continue on to this very day. You greatly underestimate the power of the wealth of the Muslim nations from the vast reserves of oil that westerners discovered on their lands, and developed and tapped. You don't think that Western powers could have retained control of these oil wells if they had chosen to do so? Of course not, you would like to pretend differently.

Radical Islam is no escape, it is the shepard leading the sheople into the slaughter house. The sooner the people of the Middle East recognize what a barbaric religion that Islam is, the better off they will be.

History is far more complex then you seem willing to recognize. Your portrayal of the U.S. as the weak aggressor is extremely out of touch with reality, and your understanding of history is too much lead by your own bias. When you learn to recognize that the U.S. has a great many internal conflicts, and that its foreign policy is tempered by what the people in power want to do verses the will of the people, then you might develop a deeper understanding of what is necessary to resolve the conflicts between the two civilization.

As usual, you make no admission to the problems of the Muslim culture. An honest discussion is not something you seem willing to engage in.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Straight Razor
Religious idiots all, Jews, Muslims, Christians... they will get the rest of us killed.

Amen to that! At least someone has some sense out there.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 03:05 AM
link   
If AhmedDimInTheHead was a fight, lets bring it...


Isreal can handle the first stike, but it will be upion the US to defend, and resupply Isreal.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
That's a pretty biased view of the Spanish American war.


Suggest the person who presumes that the US intervened in Cuban affairs to 'help' Cubans out AFTER the Cubans had largely liberated themselves from Spanish colonial rule.


The U.S. got into the war supporting Cuban Independence, as the Spaniards were brutally oppressing the Cubam resurection.


That is what the US government claimed but as always it had nothing to do with Cuban independence as was obvious after the US had 'liberated' Cuba so that they could occupy and control it for their own corporate gain. If the Us were truly interested in Cuban liberation it would have taken on the Spaniards when they were still powerful enough to fully suppress the Cuban liberation movement.


After the war, the U.S. annexed the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Phillipines. When U.S. moved forces into the Phillipines they found themselves in the middle of a Phillipinpo insurrection for independence.


Which was exactly the same as was happening in Cuba. The US did not intervene to support the liberation movement's but to crush them so that they could not taste freedom in the absence of Spanish occupation.


The U.S. fought the rebel troops, taking control of the islands, but in doing so, they became guilty of the same attrocities that the Spanish were committing in Spain.


The were guilty of the same atrocities the Spanish were committing against all the people they had occupied and it was not accidental or coincidental but part and parcel of a a much older imperial ambition.


The war was very unpopular with the people of the U.S. who were against the violent oppression.


People are almost always against wars of aggression so why do you feel the need to point out that the Citizens of the US wanted that war? Didn't they have to damage the Main to gain sufficient momentum and public support to get that war started? Can you point to war where the US government did not have to lie and cheat ( sink ships, blow up buildings ,etc) to gain some small measure of support?


As per a great deal of U.S. history, the desires of the wealthy and the will of the people were in coflict, and the will of the people won out once again. This eventually led to Phillipino independence.


After decades of occupation yes and only then to be exchanged for rule trough oppressive and violent puppets.


This is the last time the U.S. government has tried to take control of a nation or a colony without the goal of etablishing a new independent nation, or some other trick, to fool the people into supporting the war.


Well if you say so it must be true! It's just fascinating how you understand so much of the lie but then proceed to deny all the evidence that shows how the US government has tried , and largely succeeded, at enforcing the same oppression since.


As far as the ability of the U.S. to project power abroad, you greatly underestimate the ability of U.S. forces.


I have have a few hundred posts on this forum related to US power projection capabilities , or the absence of them, and it should be easy enough to find some if you want to argue that point.


While we have gotten into some quagmires our military success has only been limited by our willinging to slaughter our enemy.


So the same government who is willing to slaughter innocents by the millions are 'limited' by their consciouses? The ONLY thing that limited them was the actions of American citizens against such repressive brutal tactics and if not for public sentiment the US would have never even left Vietnam, or any of the other place, even if it resulted in the depopulation of Vietnam or the loss of tens of thousands more American lives. .


We have also had successes in accomplishing very good things in this world.


Name one thing 'good' the US government has done for 'the world'. I am sure there must be SOMETHING but normally when i ask this question i just don't get a answer that is actually related to the truth.


The only thing that limits the U.S. military is the will of the U.S. people to back military efforts.


And that is the case for most nations including the USSR. If the people of Russia were imperialist and loved war i can assure you that we would have had world war three a long time ago. The same can be said for American citizens who have always resisted the efforts of their government to drive them to war.


The activities of corporations have been going on for centuries now. What makes U.S. corporations so powerful is the power of the U.S. economy behind them.


And the power of the US economy rests on the theft of ten million square kilometers that were sparsely inhabited and very lightly defended. Europeans fought much harder for what they have and defend it with great vigor as the US learned in the Second world war.


AS far as Muslims being the victims, that is nonsense.


Muslims are not ONLY victims but on balance they have not had the best of times for a good long time.


Muslim aggression has been one of its most singular characteristics since the conception of the religion, and efforts to violently expand the religion of Islam continue on to this very day.


Islam is no more or less violent than Christianity and it's many breakaway sects; to suggest otherwise exposes your bias/ignorance for all to see.


You greatly underestimate the power of the wealth of the Muslim nations from the vast reserves of oil that westerners discovered on their lands, and developed and tapped.


You greatly underestimate how much of western prosperity were derived from exploiting the resources of Muslim nations while Muslims starved or were terrorised by western puppet rulers.


You don't think that Western powers could have retained control of these oil wells if they had chosen to do so? Of course not, you would like to pretend differently.


Western powers largely retain control of these oil wells by being in control of the capitol required to fully exploit these resources. Sure western powers could have stuck around in the ME to this day but despite the westerners are slow to catch up to middle eastern standards of civilization they eventually did and thus realised what they were doing and slowly undermined their various governments efforts to further oppress the people of that region.


Radical Islam is no escape, it is the shepard leading the sheople into the slaughter house. The sooner the people of the Middle East recognize what a barbaric religion that Islam is, the better off they will be.


Christianity is no escape, it is a shepard leading the sheople into the slaughter house. The sooner the imperialist colonizers, who spread over the globe, recognize what a barbaric religion Christianity is the better off they will be.


History is far more complex then you seem willing to recognize.


You have not read enough history to make any pronouncements at all. If i did not have to contend with the fact that there are people who has read so many fewer books than myself i wouldn't have to risk my neck by claiming to even partially understand history.


Your portrayal of the U.S. as the weak aggressor is extremely out of touch with reality, and your understanding of history is too much lead by your own bias.


The U.S is a weak aggressor because it's people are quite civilized and do not in fact want to fight wars against people that they know didn't attack them or threaten them. It's not that the US MUST be weak but in it's current form the only thing it has going for it is the fact that it's so well equipped and employs so much well integrated fire support. What you do not seem able to fathom is the fact that the Germans had very similar advantages and were still eventually overrun by people who were fighting in defense and against foreign occupiers. The moment the US attempts to attack a country of a similarly well developed nature it's fundamentally weaknesses will soon become even more obvious than before.


When you learn to recognize that the U.S. has a great many internal conflicts, and that its foreign policy is tempered by what the people in power want to do verses the will of the people, then you might develop a deeper understanding of what is necessary to resolve the conflicts between the two civilization.


So now your telling me what i told you to be the truth ? Talk about arrogance... Now that we are on the same page i hope you can read a few additional history books and actually familiarise yourself with he knowledge that you just pretended to possess.


As usual, you make no admission to the problems of the Muslim culture. An honest discussion is not something you seem willing to engage in.


As usual, you make no admission to the problems of the Christian culture. A honest discussion is not something you seem willing to engage in.
All i can add to your clear projections is that you just don't yet have the knowledge to have a honest discussion. I didn't start mouthing off online at at 18 and i really suggest that you take the years i did to immerse yourself in the large volumes, physically really, of information available on US interventionist actions in the last century.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Sorry, but the U.S. government never occupied Cuba. U.S. corporate interests did succeed in bribing and corrupting the new Cuban government, which brings us back to my original point, It isn't the U.S. governmednt that is expansionistic, it is the IC's. Once you learn this distinction, then maybe you can start to understand the history that you read. Once you learn to distinguish between the goals of the ICs and the U.S. government then you can start to understand the actions of ICs around the world, and how things developed in the Phillipines.

What has the U.S. done that is so great? Gee, I'll list a few accomplishments.

Created the greatest economy in the history of the world, a place where people all over the globe desire to live.
Provided opportunity for All
Established the first constitutional representative government.
Developed methods of mass production of steel, other metals, and numerous other products desired the world around.
Harnessed electricity and ushered in the modern era.
Created farming methods that enabled us to produce enough food to feed the entire world
Enabled man to fly
Produced the medical technology that has saved the lives of millions.
Broke the violently oppressive Spanish Empire (yeah, this was a good thing)
Defeated the NAZI's
Defeated Empirical Japan
Helped rebuild Germany after WW II
Helped rebuild Japan after WW II
Saved S. Korea from communist rule, and Taiwan as well.
Helped to establish the only first world nations outside of Western Europe (Japan and S Korea)
Provided charity to ease poverty and hunger around the globe.
Provided massive aid to fight global diseases and epidemics.
Fought agains the expansion of the Stalinist USSR
Fought against the expansion of Maoist China.
Currently fighting to stop the expansion of radical Muslim terrorists who are as barbaric as the Spanish Catholic Empire of centuries before.

Western Europeans migrated to N. America and built the greatest nation on Earth, and the descendents of a large percentage of the Native Americans who lived here at the time of the European migrations are still living here in the U.S.. This was a great accomplishment.

At least the U.S. did not enslave and work to death a vast majority of the native Americans they encountered as did the Spanish who you seem so bent on defending. The current Muslim nations with their current ongoing expansion in all directions are every bit as bloody as the Spanish Catholic Empire of several centuries ago. The protestant Western Europeans have never been as barbaric as these two religious based empires.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Prove to this Post Iran wants to make war or are even thinking about it? Show me where they are fundimentally and religiously thinking about it.

[edit on 10-7-2008 by The time lord]



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Straight Razor
Religious idiots all, Jews, Muslims, Christians... they will get the rest of us killed.

Probably the MOST INTELLIGENT COMMON SENSE thing that
has EVER been said on ATS.

quick and to the point...i like it.....yep



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maya432

Originally posted by Straight Razor
Religious idiots all, Jews, Muslims, Christians... they will get the rest of us killed.

Probably the MOST INTELLIGENT COMMON SENSE thing that
has EVER been said on ATS.

quick and to the point...i like it.....yep



From a spiritual Freudian point of you, its saying the that the rest being non believers will be killed because of lack of faith.

I am sorry to say but God is real please believe time is short. Never been so sure, if not then we are doomed.

[edit on 10-7-2008 by The time lord]



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by The time lord
 


Well, I would divulge my tapes of Iranian gov officials planning their clandestine war, but that might reveal my sources. Is that what you expect?

Iran isn't going to attack anyone because that would give the U.S. the excuse to invade Iran that they want. The U.S. military Could roll over Iran like the NAZI's rolled over Poland if they desired. If you don't want to believe this, then you live in a fantasy world. The leaders of Iran are apparently smarter than you.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by The time lord
 


I believe in God, and I believe that he is on humanities side, and that he wants us to advance technologically, and to prosper, not to spend our days praying to him. An omnipotent God doesn't want you to spend your days praying to him, he doesn't need that type of egotistical support. That is the false prophet Mohammad that needs that type of devotion.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I know what Iran is about and know America would own them, but circumstances could leave Isreal on their own to fight and like Psalm 83 and Eziekiel 38 the prophecy of the Persian war of the end times ends in fire of destrustion in the sky for Iran. So my faith is in these books and future history is my witness and a witness to God. But I think this will rage fro many years on without war as Babylon Iraq has not yet been established.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maya432

Originally posted by Straight Razor
Religious idiots all, Jews, Muslims, Christians... they will get the rest of us killed.

Probably the MOST INTELLIGENT COMMON SENSE thing that
has EVER been said on ATS.

quick and to the point...i like it.....yep

Yeah, that's real intelligent.

You are saying that there would be no wars and no bad people in the world if only religion was not around and people would get rid of their faith, then we would have utopia. Is this what you are saying? I hope not because you have know how crazy that sounds.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Sorry, but the U.S. government never occupied Cuba. U.S. corporate interests did succeed in bribing and corrupting the new Cuban government, which brings us back to my original point, It isn't the U.S. governmednt that is expansionistic, it is the IC's.


Only the Cuban government they themselves installed after having invaded and conquered that country. Stop blaming the IC's when they could not possibly have gotten away with their crimes if not for government aid as made obvious by the vast subsidies they provide at taxpayer expense?


Once you learn this distinction, then maybe you can start to understand the history that you read.


Ditto.


Once you learn to distinguish between the goals of the ICs and the U.S. government then you can start to understand the actions of ICs around the world, and how things developed in the Phillipines.


Once you understand that the governments we don't really elect are in fact representative of the interest of corporations then you might begin to get a inkling of why the foreign policy of most nations seems to adhere so closely to what the native corporations wanted in the first place. The struggle of the vast majority of people everywhere is to prevent their corporate/wealthy class from taking over the governments entirely and thus further bending them to private and minority interests.


What has the U.S. done that is so great? Gee, I'll list a few accomplishments.


Sure...


Created the greatest economy in the history of the world, a place where people all over the globe desire to live.


Completely subjective and compared to the natural riches, space and fertility of American soil it is in fact a poor country and especially so as compared to Japan and other industrialized nations.


Provided opportunity for All


The us economy does not even provide opportunities to all Americans ( especially not it's African-American population) to this day and until very recently it's laws severely restricted the rights of women. There is just no basis for claiming that the US government provides opportunity for all but what can he said is that it rewards the efforts of the brutal, oppressive and greedy minorities with all the wealth it can muster.


Established the first constitutional representative government.


Nonsense, and you know it. We have had more representative forms of government, for some stretches of time, back in Greek times!


Developed methods of mass production of steel, other metals, and numerous other products desired the world around.


Like the industrialized European nations it copied?


Harnessed electricity and ushered in the modern era.


That's very funny. Seriously speaking how do you think anything the US did ushered in a modern era? Do you not understand that Europeans are far better represented and enjoy more freedoms? It's not that European freedoms are not under pressure as well but by god!


Created farming methods that enabled us to produce enough food to feed the entire world


And yet almost a billion people will go to bed tonight undernourished or starving to death. In fact 20-30 000 people started to death today excluding a additional 50 odd thousand that died due to fully treatable disease. Don't patronize me with this feeding and caring for the world nonsense.


Enabled man to fly


And that SOME Americans did while American science of the times claimed that they were fraudsters. What does the achievements of two Americans prove about the US in your opinion?


Produced the medical technology that has saved the lives of millions.


And used it's economic power to create institutions like the WTO which prevents cheap, and as effective, copies of patented life saving drugs from being given to people for free or at least somewhat affordable prices. Not that i really believe that patented drugs are the best solution, or that American contributed so much, but i am not sure that there has been any nation in modern times that could have affected the world's economic in such positive ways and then did the exact opposite.


Broke the violently oppressive Spanish Empire (yeah, this was a good thing)


The Spanish had already lost the imperial struggle and their backs were broken before the Americans moved in to sit on it and claim victory. If you want to discuss what caused the fall of the Spanish empire lets do that but lets not pretend such nonsense.


Defeated the NAZI's


After vast sums of money were funneled into the creation of the Nazi state by wall street and American corporations in general. After it failed to spur the British and French into action at the first signs of German imperial ambitions it proceeded to watch while Britain burned only offering 'aid' when Britain had been stripped bare of many of it's imperial and corporate assets. That's not what a true defender of the free does and eventually helping the Soviet Union to defeat the Nazi empire did , in my opinion, very little to endear the American government. As to the general contention Americans were DEAD set against the war and Roosevelt had to send American servicemen on tiny ships to get blown out of the water by German submarines and even then the American public remained resolutely set against making war. In the end it cost Roosevelt a significant proportion of his Pacific fleet ( and bases by inviting Japanese attacks) to finally get enough momentum going to force the American public into war.


Defeated Empirical Japan


After blocking Japan and thus basically declaring war. Japan was just another empire and if the US government did not abuse it's power to create a oil blockade Japan would not have had to strike out at the Dutch east indies and then would not have had to attempt a first strike against the only fleet in the region that could prevent them from achieving that goal. If you wish to argue that the US defeated Japan after declaring war on it for oppressing Chinese ( which the British were doing just before the Japanese took over that role) while it was busy oppressing phillipono', Cubans, etc that is fine but frankly i find such hypocrisy very distasteful.


Helped rebuild Germany after WW II


By destroying it's industrial base and allowing a million odd Germans to starve ( by preventing other European nations from trading food for steal/coal) in the post war years? The US did not so much 'help' Germany or Europe as take US tax payers money to give to Europe so that they may buy commodities from US producers meaning it was a entirely self serving enterprise that enriched the US based corporations that had strengthened their control over German industry. It was nothing but corporate subsidy and if that money was invested in the US economy ( education/infrastructure etc) Americans would have prospered far more than it's commonly claimed that they did. Obviously all this supposed 'rebuilding' could have been prevented by not sponsoring the Nazi war machine in the first place.


Helped rebuild Japan after WW II


As for the rebuilding Japan they did that all by themselves with no aid whatsoever. What they did get was investment but that was always going to be case as bastion of American corporate/imperialist interest on the right flank of the USSR. Either way Japan would have recovered with or without such investments given the character of it's citizens and the regimented nature of it's society. One only has to go look at the North Korean recovery and general prosperity after the terribly devastating Korean war to understand why it's hard to keep people down and even more so in societies that had not had much of the benefits of democratic struggle.


Saved S. Korea from communist rule, and Taiwan as well.


But Koreans didn't and wouldn't have voted for that and there was no communist threat to start with. What there was a reunification struggle after the imperial powers ( especially the US) divided the country against the best wishes of the majority of Koreans. If there are any question about which side created the problem you will that just as in Vietnam find that the Violence were perpetrated by the US sponsored South Korean and South Vietnamese 'puppets' against those significant proportions of people in both South Vietnam and Korea who were willing to continue the struggle for independence they waged against the Japanese in Korea and the French in Vietnam. What you are in fact trying to defend is the notion that the US government perpetually keeps backing the leaders who are NOT the people's choice.


Helped to establish the only first world nations outside of Western Europe (Japan and S Korea)


North Korea were more prosperous than South Korea( living standards) until around the mid 70's and in many regards until the early 80's and clearly if the US were trying to make these nation prosperous they failed miserably.. As for Japan it would have taken perpetual bombardment to prevent them from becoming a industrialized nation hence the US actions in cutting off their oil supply and tempting the then military rulers into a war for survival of their regime.


Provided charity to ease poverty and hunger around the globe.


Name a instance where the US government ( not the people who actually often try) provided charity, not loans, without comprehensive political and economic conditions applying.

Continued



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Provided massive aid to fight global diseases and epidemics.


The US governments defense of patent rights and corporate property rights have caused hundreds of millions of deaths due to disease and famine. The efforts to prevent the diseases normally associated have largely been waged by private, and certainly sometimes American based, organizations.


Fought agains the expansion of the Stalinist USSR


The Stalinist SU were not trying to expand, and it really couldn't have given the dominance of European powers, and basically took what it could from Eastern European dictators who had aided the Nazi's in the aggression against the SU. If the US were truly interested in 'liberating' these conquered nations it could and should have done so when it had the chance in 1945. Post the second world war the USSR were formed as response to the formation of NATO ( clearly a aggressive move by the west) and while the US were arming to fight in other countries ( aircraft carriers, fuel and ammunition capacity of most armored vehicles etc) the USS R's moves were most certainly more defense in orientation as expressed by the absolutely vast efforts to create air defenses networks to protect European Russia. Even when the USSR gained strategic advantages in the mid 70's and strategic superiority in the 80's they did not act on it in overtly aggressive ways and did what they could to safeguard their own country while it fell on the Cubans ( without sometimes even the express knowledge of the Russians) to support much of the liberation struggles that were going on in Africa and South America. The popular mythology of the 'expansionist' USSR is riddled with so many lies that one wonders why the far more aggressive US national security state so rarely gets a mention.


Fought against the expansion of Maoist China.


And where did they want to expand and if so why didn't they? If the US could barely halt the Chinese 'volunteers' in Korea how on earth could or would it have fought a two pronged attack by the USSR and China? Where is that expansionist Maoist China in the actual historic text?


Currently fighting to stop the expansion of radical Muslim terrorists who are as barbaric as the Spanish Catholic Empire of centuries before.


The difference being that the Spanish had a empire and used barbaric practices against nations that had very little in terms of defense where as it is Muslim nations that are being occupied and or invaded at this time with 'radicals' doing pretty much what some American citizens did in the first US civil war ( or called the war of 'independence' by the ignorant/deceitful) by attacking their occupiers and those who are perceived to be aiding them.


Western Europeans migrated to N. America and built the greatest nation on Earth,


Nonsense. North America were largely founded by bigots, who were so unhappy with the fact that Church and state were being separated, as well as all the social reforms, that they left or by people that were actually being persecuted for being too rich or in fact a minority of some sort. What makes American 'great', in imperial terms at least, is not that it has in the last few decades caught up to European social standards but that there was so much native land to steal and so much resources to exploit. I can assure you that if such resources were available to Europeans their social structures would allow a far more civilized division of power and wealth than has been achieved in the US


and the descendents of a large percentage of the Native Americans who lived here at the time of the European migrations are still living here in the U.S.. This was a great accomplishment.


By far the largest percentage of native Americans were killed and while it was what was stolen from them that allowed much of the current wealth some would still like to pretend that they just didn't exist to be exploited.


At least the U.S. did not enslave and work to death a vast majority of the native Americans they encountered as did the Spanish who you seem so bent on defending.


They sure did and what's worse when they had exploited the natives to death they imported natives from Africa and other places to come do the dirty work. I have no love of what was imperial Spain and i hope that you are one of the few who have managed to construe my points as some kind of love for Spain.


The current Muslim nations with their current ongoing expansion in all directions are every bit as bloody as the Spanish Catholic Empire of several centuries ago.


If this wasn't such a utterly ridiculous statement i could have laughed but as it stands it seems that you actually believe this type of nonsense and that's something i should rather cry about.


The protestant Western Europeans have never been as barbaric as these two religious based empires.


Right says the person who apparently does not know what the Dutch, Germans, Portuguese, French and Belgians did in Africa and South East Asia. It's says that you are willing to type so much based on such a horrid understanding of history.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join