American Atrocities

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
We still them money and support their elected governments. We do not support the large terrorist group living in their midst and we think they should do something to eradicate it.

No you didn’t. You let Israel blow them into oblivion. You consider Hezbollah as a terrorist organization (just like the AUC of Mandela back in the days), and the people voted for Hezbollah. Is that your definition of supporting elected governments? For the record, three countries only share the US’ stance on listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization; Canada, Israel, and the Netherlands

If you are democratically elected and you actively work against US interests as Chavez does he risks having the US work against him.

Well, his vehement opposition of the US foreign policy was exactly what got him the support needed to get elected.

In case you are missing it he is actively meddling in neighboring countries. Do you think this is OK when he does it and not OK when the US does it?

I don’t think you guys play in the same league. The US meddles with the whole world, plus every couple of years or so, decides to slaughter a country.
Chavez, as bad as he turned out to be, is a saint in comparison.

We believe our system is the best and do not want the horrorshow of communism or radical Islam dominating.
[…]
This is reality. The fact that you call it an excuse and try to play the Nazi card shows me you know it is the truth and you have nothing to counter it but you do not want to lose an internet argument.

I was refering to the Brits, French and others empires around the 16th century. Look at the documents from that period; It’s exactly the way they put it.

And that wasn’t an argument on your side. You were just telling me that you believed in your system. I believe in a lot of things too, but that doesn’t give me the right to go forcefeed them to others.

The horrorshow of communism and radical Islam? Have you missed the one of savage capitalism and ?[/quote]

Are you really comparing the political prisons of communism, mass murder, the starvation and oppression to that of US policies? And don’t say something stupid like, “how about Gitmo”?

And give Chavez with a military won’t be such the wonderful guy you paint him out to be. He might be democratically elected, but I think he changed the rules in the middle of the game. I think he is now president for life or something to that effect. What do you have to say about that? He is the next Castro. I guess that is OK with you.

182

[quote]lucasa wrote:
As far as you’re concerned, yes, that is the case. That’s precisely why the majority of Americans oppose it.

[sarcasm]and the Military-Industrial Complex[/sarcasm]
[/quote]

If you have any serious suggestion concerning why the majority of public opinion in every single country of the “Coalition of the Coerced, Bribed, and Intimidated” opposes the war I’d like to hear it please.

Aren’t democratic governments (that you’re so proud of) supposed to represent the will of their constituency?

183

[quote]derek wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
Have you missed the one of savage capitalism and ?

I have missed that too.

This capitalism savagely freed hundreds of millions of people from poverty, diseases and lack of basic education.

The horror!

Orion the ever-present negative nelly. Read this and learn.

http://piv.pivpiv.dk/
[/quote]

184

[quote]orion wrote:
derek wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
Have you missed the one of savage capitalism and ?

I have missed that too.

This capitalism savagely freed hundreds of millions of people from poverty, diseases and lack of basic education.

The horror!

Orion the ever-present negative nelly. Read this and learn.

http://piv.pivpiv.dk/

- YouTube [/quote]

I’ve seen that about a hundred times! It’s funnier every time I see it!

There’s a vid of him feeling up some Brazillian chick too!

What a maroon! He should’ve stuck with womanizing and such.

185

[quote]derek wrote:
orion wrote:
derek wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
Have you missed the one of savage capitalism and ?

I have missed that too.

This capitalism savagely freed hundreds of millions of people from poverty, diseases and lack of basic education.

The horror!

Orion the ever-present negative nelly. Read this and learn.

http://piv.pivpiv.dk/

I’ve seen that about a hundred times! It’s funnier every time I see it!

There’s a vid of him feeling up some Brazillian chick too!

What a maroon! He should’ve stuck with womanizing and such.

[/quote]

This one? A classic.

It’s nice having a politician who at least isn’t a total hypocrite about womanizing. Or man… uh- izing.

186

[quote]orion wrote:
I like evil people better.

If you like evil people, then why would you be upset if the ‘evil Americans’ engaged in the same activities?

Did I not write that the differences between those ghastly, lice infected terrorists and those physically and spiritually healthy Americans are obvious?

How can you question that everything that is touched by the forces of good, i.e the American military is blesseth by the Lord?[/quote]

Wow! I mistook you for a Generation Y narcissist that never served in the military, yet pretends to know much more than those who do.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/186402.php
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/185683.php
http://velvethammer.wordpress.com/tag/anti-war-activists/

187

[quote]lixy wrote:

  • Frowned upon every single Arab country to and threaten to withdraw support if they forbid political parties.
  • Recognized the Iranian regime as legitimate and opened talks with them.
  • Offered a bounty for the capture of Saddam and let Iraqis do the job for you.

…

That would take away the very reasons Al-Qaeda exists in the first place.[/quote]

My understanding, from every source pro or con, is that Al-Qaeda exists to destroy infidels, the nation of Israel, and any foreign influence in Muslim nations. I don’t see how the above jives with the fatwa.

And I assume you would do this through the iniquitous UN? Because, especially at this point, you’d have trouble convincing Americans and even the world of Iran’s legitimacy. You certainly don’t establish trust and legitimacy by kicking out inspectors. And your support is sure to drop off quickly, frowning on the Saudis without establishing energy independence first.

Also, if we wanted Saddam dead, an assassination would’ve done more, cheaper. But failing would’ve created another Castro (What you suggest sounds just as much “Cold War” as anything the CIA did, IMO) and success would’ve created a power vacuum as should be clear now. Moreover, had we assassinated Saddam, people (much like yourself) would be calling us iniquitous maybe even insinuating that you were in cahoots with murders, baby killers, and literal cutthroats.

Lastly, and most importantly, some might define cowardice as saying you’d never contemplate killing anyone and then saying you’d pay peasants to capture and/or kill your enemies.

188

[quote]Juan Blanco wrote:
orion wrote:
I like evil people better.

If you like evil people, then why would you be upset if the ‘evil Americans’ engaged in the same activities?

Did I not write that the differences between those ghastly, lice infected terrorists and those physically and spiritually healthy Americans are obvious?

How can you question that everything that is touched by the forces of good, i.e the American military is blesseth by the Lord?

Wow! I mistook you for a Generation Y narcissist that never served in the military, yet pretends to know much more than those who do.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/186402.php
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/185683.php
http://velvethammer.wordpress.com/tag/anti-war-activists/
[/quote]

Generation X and I spat on more than one soldier.

I even urinated on one, which ironically
meant that he won.

Try to cram that into your little universe.

189

[quote]lucasa wrote:
My understanding, from every source pro or con, is that Al-Qaeda exists to destroy infidels, the nation of Israel, and any foreign influence in Muslim nations. I don’t see how the above jives with the fatwa.[/quote]

Al-Qaeda is nothing without the suicide bombers. As it stands, US foreign policy pisses off a lot of people apparentely so much as to give them reasons to blow themselves up. If the US’ attitude changes and quits aggressing othres, Al-Qaeda will have a hard time finding enough pissed off people. Eventually, all that’ll remain of it is a couple of bearded guys with no support base.

I’d indeed have trouble convincing anyone of Iran’s legitimacy. What I won’t have trouble doing, is convincing people of the US’ illegitimacy.

Killing one man is VERY different from slaughtering a whole population. I didn’t care much for Saddam, so I wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow for his loss.

Whatever you held against the Iraqi regime is peanuts compared to what you guys did since WWII. Saddam is a choir boy compared to your presidents. Does that give me the right to come and start killing people? No. You’re supposed to be the ones acting on changing the situation in your country. That’s pretty much what I was trying to convey.

190

[quote]lixy wrote:

Al-Qaeda is nothing without the suicide bombers.[/quote]

This shows a clear misunderstanding of what Al-Qaeda and associated terrorist organizations actually are. Surely you’re not overlooking armed attacks, non-suicide bombings, kidnapping and executions (in response to US “frowning” on Pakistani anti-terrorist policy)?

Moreover how do you deter the suicide bombers when leaders promise/provide fortunes to the families of those bombers? Greater fortunes?

Surges of illegal immigrants who risk life and limb stand in difference to your statement. The brains that we import from Europe stand in difference to your statement. The spread of US industry around the world as well as the world’s investment in the US stand in difference to your statement. You talk about people being held down by US money and being intimidated by US power, do you think it’s all an illusion?

This, again, shows a clear misunderstanding of the terrorist situation and mindset. Kidnapping three soldiers is grounds for war, I wonder what putting a bounty on a national leaders’ head would generate? I wonder if the retribution would target Bush or Americans indiscriminately. Further, as I was saying, you’d have a hard time convincing the UN to back a bounty on a foreign leader, so you’d be going it alone.

Once again, you’re right, we should’ve just allowed the Soviets to march straight through Vietnam (murdering along the way…like they did), Cambodia (murdering along the way…like they did), and into Taiwan, where we should’ve stayed out of it until the entire South Pacific was under communist control.

I’m sure the Soviets would’ve given you the choice of burning farms with them or dying in the Gulags, both of which are much better than living under the “oppressive” American regime.

What situation? The one where our leader is gassing and killing his own constituents? The same one that has been in power for the last 12 yrs. and will continue on indefinitely? The one that harbors self-pronounced enemies of the Western World?

The one that condones and rewards individuals attacking civilians regardless of stated motives or national affiliations? The one that we arguably put in power? That situation? We helped those people take care of that situation. I can see how someone who laughs at the phrase “What we’re doing in Iraq” might be confused.

191

anyone mention Unit 731?

192

[quote]lucasa wrote:
This shows a clear misunderstanding of what Al-Qaeda and associated terrorist organizations actually are. Surely you’re not overlooking armed attacks, non-suicide bombings, kidnapping and executions (in response to US “frowning” on Pakistani anti-terrorist policy)?[/quote]

One of us must have a misunderstanding of what terrorism is. Terrorist organizations don’t grow on trees. They are a natural response to aggressive policies. A man doesn’t chose to go blow himself up; He is drawn to that behavior by his oppressor.

History is merely repeating itself.

The fortunes are not intended as an incentive for the suicide bomber. They’re just supposed to compensate the family for their loss of income. The man’s job being traditionally the family’s sole revenue source, it only makes sense to minimize his widow and orphants’ ordeal.

Get over it. Money alone cannot drive a man into such terrible acts. Hatred can and always will.

With all due respect, this is the most stupid argument you’ve made on this thread.

The US is and has been the strongest economy in the world for the last 70 years or so. In case you missed it, in the real-world capitalistic economy, the rich gets richer and the poor…well even poorer. The US is no exception to that rule. In fact, the percentage of poor US citizens who are living in severe poverty reached a 32-year high.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=12201

But in the grand scheme, the US still spends considerable amounts of money in R&D and that’s what’s driving the “European brains”.

The countries from which the “surges of illegal immigrants who risk life and limb” come have seen their economies wrecked by the IMF, direct US military actions, unfair trade agreements signed by the pro-western elite or embargoes. The US is directly responsible for the plight of most Latin American countries.

One last thing; The US is a wonderful country. It’s wealthy and quite beautiful in places. But that has absolutely nothing to do with its “illegitimacy” which was the subject at hand. Your argument is like saying that someone’s legitimacy is determined by his/her riches, good-looks and popularity.

Bombing Vietnam into the stone age and supporting Pol Pot in Cambodia. That’s murder alright.

How strange then that the crushing majority of the world views the US as the main threat to world peace (Israel is of course 2nd).

Those ungrateful bastards!

Your leader are indeed killing and did gas people. They just happen to be on the other side of the border.

Given the reasonable chance of Hillary being elected, that would make the Bush 1st-Clinton 1st-Bush 2nd-Clinton 2nd reign total some 20 years in office. Averages that to a decade per family.

Hmm…Have you ever heard about the numerous extradition demands for CIA agents? A great deal of the agency are criminals.

Did I mention that the US harbors international terrorists?

How noble of you to help them.

Strange thing though is that 90% of the people you helped are as confused as me. Check out the polls.

193

[quote]lixy wrote:

One last thing; The US is a wonderful country. It’s wealthy and quite beautiful in places. But that has absolutely nothing to do with its “illegitimacy” which was the subject at hand. Your argument is like saying that someone’s legitimacy is determined by his/her riches, good-looks and popularity.
[/quote]

OK, I’m missing your provable, logical arguements concerning Americas illegitimacy.

Can you please explain point by point the miriad ways you see “us” as illegitimate? Thanks.

194

[quote]lixy wrote:
Strange thing though is that 90% of the people you helped are as confused as me. Check out the polls.[/quote]

You polled millions of people? Remarkable! Especially all those non-English speaking chaps! What a guy!

195

[quote]lixy wrote:

One of us must have a misunderstanding of what terrorism is. Terrorist organizations don’t grow on trees. They are a natural response to aggressive policies. A man doesn’t chose to go blow himself up; He is drawn to that behavior by his oppressor.[/quote]

Um, it’s nice that you just learned who terrorists are and why they do it. To reiterate my original point relative to your newly-learned definition, putting a bounty on Saddam’s head would be passive policy?

How noble and courageous that these men abandon their own families to kill civilians indiscriminately. And how generous that a leader would not put them in an army, pay them a wage, declare war, and attack, or orient the policies of his country to address these concerns but rather pay the families and perpetuate the cycle indefinitely. Seriously, this is such thinly veiled bullshit it’s not even funny.

I can understand how it would elude someone who couldn’t contemplate killing another human being. But most of the world sees causes worth killing and dying for. Some just choose to target and kill those who aren’t fighting.

Funny how your answer doesn’t really disagree with what I asserted.

[quote]The US is and has been the strongest economy in the world for the last 70 years or so. In case you missed it, in the real-world capitalistic economy, the rich gets richer and the poor…well even poorer. The US is no exception to that rule. In fact, the percentage of poor US citizens who are living in severe poverty reached a 32-year high.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=12201[/quote]

Once again, funny that people immigrate to be poor here rather than be poor in their own country. Moreover, not everyone can be a winner nor can any system of government viably to hold its best and brightest back to support it’s worst and dimmest.

Don’t forget the cumbersome bureaucracies they’re escaping in their own countries. It’s good to know that many of Europe’s brightest minds don’t see the US as wretched or oppressive enough to keep them from getting a job or furthering their education there.

This is an oxymoron, either the US was directly responsible or operated through pro-Western elitists and the IMF. It’s fine (but incorrect) if you think the US is directly responsible, but if you think the IMF had a/the hand in it, then all the member states of the IMF are culpable as well as pro-Western elitists.

And the pro-Western elitists of which you speak, were the strictly pro-Western or Anti-Communist?

If prosperity and popularity don’t establish “legitimacy” (especially with you), I’m not so sure I want “legitimacy” (especially with you).

[sarcasm]On a completely unrelated note, not that he should or have to, but I wonder why Mahmoud has shed the garb that his predecessors wore for the decidedly Western-GQ look? Probably not to help his credibility. Certainly not.[/sarcasm]

And relative to the communists that we were fighting, the comparative death tolls are?

[quote]How strange then that the crushing majority of the world views the US as the main threat to world peace (Israel is of course 2nd).

Those ungrateful bastards![/quote]

Wait, I thought we were rich, good looking, and popular but illegitimate? Now we’re just rich and good looking? I guess Europe’s brightest minds as well as the hard working South/Central Americans are immigrating to main threat to world peace rather than just the US.

I hope to god you keep posting because when you assert things like ‘Bush Sr./Clinton/Bush Jr./possibly Clinton election cycle is the political equivalent to Saddam’s “election” “cycle”’ it really doesn’t back up your ideology so much as undermine it.

196

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Um, it’s nice that you just learned who terrorists are and why they do it. To reiterate my original point relative to your newly-learned definition, putting a bounty on Saddam’s head would be passive policy?[/quote]

The bounty idea is as stupid as they come. Yet, it’s not that bad compared to invading and bombing the whole bazar. It’s just that if you ABSOLUTELY wanted Saddam removed, that would have been a more humane choice.

You were assuming that the fortunes were the only thing that drives suicide bombers into committing their acts of madness. I pointed out why money was offered to them as a mere compensation and not as an incentive.

You mean like the innocent civilians bombed by F-16s?

No, prosperity and popularity do not, and should not under any circumstance suffice to establish legitimacy. Look at Mafia bosses. They’re all prosperous and popular.

For the last time, the US is a great country and is arguably the wealthiest nation on Earth.
I’m not criticizing America or Americans in general. My beef is with US foreign policy and people who rationalize it like yourself.

You keep bringing Immigration as proof that US foreign policy is legitimate. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the many people who flee to the US is that they are more likely to find economic prosperity in America than in their hometowns.

I apologize for attempting to make a connection between the two systems.

However, your democracy could easily be put to shame by other countries where people really care about political issues and vote for candidates issued from the masses. Bolivia’s latest election is such an example.

The US is an oligarchy where power is concentrated in the power of a privileged few.

197

[quote]lixy wrote:

The US is an oligarchy where power is concentrated in the power of a privileged few.[/quote]

So is every other country.

Contrary to, let`s say Sweden, an average American still gets to keep about half of what he earns, if not more.

Since economic freedom is allmost all the freedom you have, I`d say that

a) Economic power is much more widespread in the US

and

b) the US is a much freer country than most European ones.

Frankly, the average Swede is nothing but a beast of burden for society.

You are constantly using power (what form?), freedom and democracy as if they were interchangeable concepts.

198

[quote]orion wrote:
You are constantly using power (what form?), freedom and democracy as if they were interchangeable concepts.[/quote]

I didn’t notice.

I’m not defending the Swedish system or any other one currently implemented. I’m just tearing down the Americans who defend their imperialistic system. They never miss a shot at say, Chavez but turn a blind eye (or are simply unaware) to what their own government does.

On the other hand, here’s what I believe is a suitable alternative to the oligarchy craze you so justly pointed out;

199

[quote]lixy wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism[/quote]

I’m surprised any disparaging skeptic such as yourself thinks any system is immune to the “Iron Law of Oligarchy”.

I’ve got a joke for you:

What’s the difference between Libertarian Socialism and the Mafia?

200

[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
You are constantly using power (what form?), freedom and democracy as if they were interchangeable concepts.

I didn’t notice.

I’m not defending the Swedish system or any other one currently implemented. I’m just tearing down the Americans who defend their imperialistic system. They never miss a shot at say, Chavez but turn a blind eye (or are simply unaware) to what their own government does.

On the other hand, here’s what I believe is a suitable alternative to the oligarchy craze you so justly pointed out;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism[/quote]

Well, of course the “USA, USA!” crowd can be funny.

Let us just leave it at that.

The way I understand it, libertarian socialism is an oxymoron.

You cannot demand or expect or even hope that people exercise their freedoms if you take away every means to do so.

In fact socialism makes it impossible to exercise any rights.

If I have theoretical rights but do not own the private means to do anything, those political rights do not matter.

No private property => no real “rights” whatsoever.

Olygarchy:

There is a natural nobility.

We could argue if it includes George Bush, but obviously some families make something right.

Is it really in our best interest to fight them?

Is it not enough to be able to vote them out of power?