posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:30 AM
Originally posted by theblunttruth
What about the "atrocities" the US has intervened in?
If you can name some that they did not also have a in hand in creating...
Care to mention those?
Standing up to tyrants,
When it suits the interest of the American national security state to do so; when they no longer have a use for one of their former puppets they
invade the country claiming to be 'liberating' it from the very person they sponsored into and supported in power.
Giving aid to Africa, Palestine.
You mean to suggest that the people of Africa should thank the US national security state for giving a little bit of the money back that it helped
American corporations from stealing from Africa? Thanks but frankly anyone can do without that sort of 'help'.
Tell me whenever an International crisis happens, who are the first ones providing aid through any means necessary?
Not the US national security state as they are for the most part actively engaged in creating the crisis so as to enable yet another intervention for
geo political gain.
Some of you either have very short memories or very selective ones, im really bored and quite frankly feel sorry for the hatred you harbour
towards the US.
Short memories is something the American right shares with the American left with the REAL problem being how completely misinformed people on both
sides of the debate have become. The people of the United States have on occasions created and sustained great charities but non of it came, or comes
close, to the scale of the atrocities and mass murder they 'support' by virtue of paying taxes to a central government that sponsored the worse of
the worse tyrants when they were not practicing economic exploitation or terrorism or outright invading& bombing other nations.
Thats right they're not perfect and as Churchill said you sometimes have to get your hands dirty to stand up for the greater
The US national security state's policies are not 'flawed' as result are too uniform; no set of misdirected policies will so consistently result in
one set of outcomes for the people's of various countries. I am sure we can learn something from Churchill but i am not so sure that it will have
much to do with the 'greater' good.
just a shame some of you cant see through the mistakes and actually analyse and correctly interpret the ultimate intention.
Why do you keep trying to find benevolent intent when the results are so uniformly devastating? Do you think they are just 'unluckly' to always end
up getting it 'wrong' in the same old way? Why do the strategy changes they have made as their citizens become more aware keep leading to the same
old devastation and destruction of democratic forces in their target countries? Coincidence? Bad luck?
Anyway sorry for going off on a slight tangent there, back to point, it seem's even the Chinese are now distancing themselves from the
And why wouldn't the Chinese want to appear to the doing so? What political points could they possible score by attempting to refute the western
Media's spin on this affair?