Let's Have a frank talk about America.

a reply to: glend

isn't it also true, that america's policies are controlled by a small selection of people (be it elites) that are not truthfully representing the will of the people.

Yet many Americans still stand idley by as their government commits and supported mass murder of innocents in sovereign nation-states all across the world... From countries like Cambodia,Iraq,Afghanistan,Vietnam and Indonesia.
Some Americans still support your governments aggressive foreign policy and want war with North Korea,China,Russia and other nations dubbed "oppressive authoritarian regimes" all in the name of some vague crusade...

I'm not disregarding that these countries never violated human rights prior to U.S military intervention.
However,there's no way to vindicate the list of atrocities and further aggression in these nation-states by suggesting it's the fault of some insidious group from within the U.S government,rather than the real clowns and puppets you guys elected...

a reply to: goou111

The threat to world peace is the cabal that Joneselius alludes to in the OP

Islam is dragged into the picture to create an enemy, easier to win hearts of the West. Were weapons of mass destruction ever located in the Middle East? It's all psyops, create an enemy, billions to be made off the blood of humanity.

www.masters-of-war.org...

The Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, is a group founded in 1997 that has been agitating since its inception for a war with Iraq. PNAC was the driving force behind the drafting and passage of the Iraqi Liberation Act, a bill that painted a veneer of legality over the ultimate designs behind such a conflict. The names of every prominent PNAC member were on a letter delivered to President Clinton in 1998 which castigated him for not implementing the Act by driving troops into Baghdad.

Weapons of mass destruction are a smokescreen. Paeans to the idea of Iraqi liberation and democratization are cynical in their inception. At the end of the day, this is not even about oil. The drive behind this war is ideological in nature, a crusade to 'reform' the religion of Islam as it exists in both government and society within the Middle East. Once this is accomplished, the road to empire will be open, ten lanes wide and steppin' out over the line. At the end of the day, however, ideology is only good for bull sessions in the board room and the bar. Something has to grease the skids, to make the whole thing worthwhile to those involved, and entice those outside the loop to get into the game.

a reply to: glend

So one might also argue that terrorist have infiltrated the ruling positions in government.

They have always been there. The stakes are higher now, this "clash of civilizations" is leaving millions dead and displaced.

a reply to: Majic

and if that threat were to be completely and utterly eradicated, it would immediately be replaced by a different single greatest threat to world peace.

Well since the 50s the USA has been the biggest threat to world peace. Just look at the fascist regimes installed by the US in South America. We have never in recent history had a truly peaceful world - $trillions wasted in MAD and cold war scaremongering. Imagine what innovations that money could have been spent on.

It is a product of human nature, and at its raw, unvarnished heart, human nature, like nature itself, is violent.

If that were the true, then there would be no need of lies about WMDS, false flag events or military conscription. I think your rhetoric and apologetics tries too hard. You cannot whitewash what the reality is.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Nothing you've said refutes or even opposes what I've said.

You are battling a straw man.

The USA has changed just like our police force. I blame all modern us presidents and congress. Supposedly at one time America wouldn't attack you primitively. Now that has changed just like our police force wouldn't just kill you with routine encounters.

Anyway Nazi Germany invaded 3 countries before the world stood up against them, how many will it take the USA attacking before the world stands up against us?

originally posted by: Xcathdra


I think this clip sums things up.

**NSFW - Language**

I absolutely love this clip, I ended up watching the entire series after watching that the first time, until it was canned for no good reason.

One of the most descriptive and truthful looks into the state of America today, a state that many other western countries leaderships (not people), including my own, want to emulate. It's frightening.

Manifest Destiny

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
Supposedly at one time America wouldn't attack you primitively.

It's a popular notion in the United States, but it's not a supposition supported by history.

The "Indian wars", Revolutionary War, wars with other colonial powers, wars with Canada, wars with Mexico, Civil War, wars of expansion, wars of colonization, wars of subjugation, wars of retaliation, wars of influence, "cold" wars, "police actions", "regime changes", wars that have defined the United States at every step, typically waged upon the barest of pretexts, and rife with the most shocking atrocities imaginable, are not the legacy of a peaceful nation.

Rather, they illustrate a path toward world domination, which leads us to the current discussion.

My point, briefly stated, is that the position the U.S. currently occupies, though unique in details, is not unique in nature. History makes that clear enough, and that war is by no means unique or exclusive to America.

Any discussion which ignores that context ignores reality and thus bears no relevance to it.

A much needed and timely thread. I don't have time to do a response justice right now, but (life willing) I will return when I have more time.

S & F.

TheRedneck

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Why do you say that? A good number of US members, myself included, have known we're a threat for a long time now. In fact we know our government is broken and have trying to find ways to fix it for a long time.

I don't think you know the American people as well as you think you do. A good number of us need no convincing and do the best can to survive with what we have until enough people wake up to do something about it.

a reply to: Joneselius

Someone sounds butthurt? Quick to throw insults at everyone in America. Can you show me on the doll where you pretend America touched you?

a reply to: Joneselius

Americans dont want to talk about it. Im surprised your thread has had this much attention to be honest.

Seems like these days everyone is more concerned with dumb and dumber and which isn't telling the truth as if there is any truth in politics.

The complacency around us is staggering to say the least!!

Once it hits us hard we will want to make a stand but not until then. Will it be too late?

American's sleep and turn the other cheek. They have no worries of the murderous crimes on 9/11, our soldiers, and so on. Who cares about Syrians.. blow them up. Who cares about the Earth.... rape her for her resources and while you're at it go ahead and take control of all countries in the middle east. Power and money will prevail even if we have to drop nukes..

No worries. Go back to sleep.

a reply to: Joneselius

I will watch the content you posted in video format later, but it will likely contain things I already knew, or suspected. As for your OP, I think you battered the nail so roundly about the head, that it is currently being autopsied.

Given recent events, I would say that your Trump/Clinton candidates are in place, because they have been selected for their willingness to do very wrong things in the name of potentially earning themselves even more power and influence. That sort of shallow validation means something to the psychopathic class of individual to which they belong.

a reply to: JinMI

I absolutely see these things as separate.

The government of a nation, and its people are rarely representative of one another.

The United States of America doesn't represent freedom any longer.

I don't think any place does.

a reply to: FrontRunner

How is attacking American foreign policy, promoted and endorsed by successive administrations of its government, attacking Americans in general?

Seems a little foolish to confuse the people with the power running the place, since clearly, the people are not the power there at all.

a reply to: Majic

Human history offers no examples of spontaneous peace, and such peace as there has been has always come at the price of war, because only those who possess the power to win wars have the power to impose peace.

That's one way too look at it. War is Peace, except that it isn't.

The Peace of Westphalia established the precedent of peaces established by diplomatic congress,[4][5] and a new system of political order in central Europe, later called Westphalian sovereignty, based upon the concept of co-existing sovereign states. Inter-state aggression was to be held in check by a balance of power. A norm was established against interference in another state's domestic affairs. As European influence spread across the globe, these Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to the prevailing world order

Peace of Westphalia

We saw a shift from (super-)powers claiming different rights according to their military capacity to a concept of co-existing states with equal rights regardless of their power. This concept of sovereign states is the foundation for institutions like the UN, which could be the biggerst player in the ring to threaten all our troublemakers. The US might act on behalf of the UN as the worlds police officer from time to time, but they also spread this Empire of Chaos. Which is exactly the problem and probably the core of this thread.

A truly frank talk about America can only occur within the context of a frank talk about the world in which it exists, and the world in which it exists is not a world of peace.

Hear, hear! Well said. We have bigger problems resulting from the way we connect to the world, doesn't matter if we call it plain consumerism, positivism or the strive for neverending growth. And given the condition of our ecosystem, we're already on a clear path of self-destruction. It's not a world of peace, it's one of constant war/ competition for ressources, power and influence in a geopolitical game of chess with many greedy players.

All this violence and greed is part of our nature, but let's not forget our capacity for companionship and cooperation as well. The biggest wonders we humans achieved resulted from exactly those traits, which is precisely why I hold high hopes that we might actually be able to overcome our more violent and greedy past.

The UN is a tiger with no teeth and maybe it's time to bury another failed concept. I can't stop thinking about more direct forms of democracy and open source projects, maybe we need something like a United Wordcitizenship (with the possibility to vote in various referenda) to avoid the continuous mob rule of corrupt representatives in nearly all of our organisations. And to offer some education, we probably only need some open source databases to work with. There you have it all laid out, something to ponder on.

Awesome reply though, hopefully I was able to provide you with some bright flashes of majical thinking.

The United States has become what it is due to its success. At this point there are such far flung powerful interests grabbing politicians and bureaucrats by the ear that the country has become extremely Byzantine. And much worse than that it is a socialist Byzantine empire that is promising to alleviate the woes of the poor while accepting and encouraging the machinations of the wealthy. Democracy is not the answer because Democracy only has interest in swaying a majority opinion. We should all know by this time that sometimes the will of a majority at any given time can be extremely dangerous because it is nearly always emotional.
There are two ways the United States can avoid its nearly unstoppable demise. One is to return to its initial nature (pre civil war) as a Republic of states that have more power than the Federal branch. This seems all but impossible because the greed and vice that surrounds Washington DC is now considered functional to those that haunt its offices of administration.
The other would be the whole benevolent King idea, which would be entirely impossible to sell to the American culture.
So what will probably happen is that America will continue to be attacked and literally destroyed by one thousand lashes. It's just a matter of time.
I do believe that HRC (if she becomes our leader) is such a vile and reprehensible human being, that she might start un-needed conflict to "prove" she is just as tough as a man. That and she has clearly been shown over her career to be thirsty for power and little else.
Trump, he seems more isolationist and willing to negotiate with his equals. He could possibly start a war by being hoodwinked into thinking he has made a deal when he hasn't.

Obama? Jesus Christ that guy makes bad decisions when it comes to foreign relationships. And making HRC and then Kerry heads of the state department shows that he makes bad decisions when picking executives as well.

No one knows what the future holds, but I would have to agree with the general consensus here - as an American - that the future really doesn't look that bright. Then again to me and hasn't seemed all that bright since around the first Bush admin. And if I were to conspire to figure that out it would be because Bush number one was the first 100 percent globalist that ran this country - and we have had them running us every since then.

The Price Of Freedom

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The United States of America doesn't represent freedom any longer.

I don't think any place does.

It's debatable whether the U.S. ever really has represented freedom, at least in the literal sense.

Certainly, the principle of "Liberty" figures prominently in documents related to the founding of the country, with the Declaration of Independence proclaiming "self-evident" truths. The tone and substance of that document could be convincingly said to represent the philosophy of "the American Way" and the national psyche, and is, to this day, often invoked as if it were law, even though it no longer carries any legal effect.

But that Liberty has always had its limits, especially for anyone not "endowed by their Creator" to be a white man who owned real property, who were the only people in most states eligible to vote. And aside from the inequities of requiring land ownership to have a voice in government at all, apparently only all men were created equal in the minds of the founders, given that women weren't permitted to vote until 144 years after the Declaration of Independence.

Of course the slaves owned by Thomas Jefferson and roughly half of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were exempt from the promises of Liberty expounded so passionately by their high-minded owners. Likewise for Native Americans, whose relationship with the new government made it all too clear that "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" were for them at best a matter of negotiation, and at worst waived in favor of mass incarceration or summary extermination.

For immigrants to the United States, it is a time-honored tradition that they be denied equal protection under law, sequestered in ghettos and exploited for the benefit of those who, by virtue of wealth or station, could assert their rights as citizens. That those "rights" might include abuses otherwise intolerable under law was accepted as a matter of custom, for in America, justice has always been a luxury limited to those who can afford it.

The absurdity of these contradictions, like so many others, is so interwoven with the history of the United States that to ignore the centrality of hypocrisy in this great nation is to fail to understand America altogether.

Yet despite the grim realities thinly veiled by the grand ideal, even in its worst days, the U.S. has still compared favorably to many -- though definitely not all -- other countries in terms of freedom.

Complicating that assessment is the fact that most people, regardless of where they live, rarely appreciate just how little freedom they actually have until they try to use it, and the picture becomes ever more murky as more and more freedoms are routinely denied, whether overtly or covertly.

Perhaps it's best to think of the American concept of "freedom" as an ideal toward which to work, but which can never be attained in practice.

At least there is an ideal.

That's something.

I agree that the world is on the cusp of the final war, largely brought on by America's influence in the Middle East....

That being said, Americans are sheeple, just like the majority of civilized peoples in the free world.

There could be a nuclear war, 90% of everything could be totally destroyed, and half the survivors would still be walking around with wallets and credit cards in their pockets as they stumble through the rubble, months after the event even though those items of modern life go extinct with the first nuclear exchange.