[quote]rainjack wrote:
And how exactly is Central America “home” for you? Did you pick that bit up from the Monroe doctrine?
Keep up! I didn’t talk about what they did in Vietnam (which by the way was atrocious). Rather, I asked if anyone held the US responsible for what happened in the region after your soldiers headed home.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
And how exactly is Central America “home” for you? Did you pick that bit up from the Monroe doctrine?
Keep up! I didn’t talk about what they did in Vietnam (which by the way was atrocious). Rather, I asked if anyone held the US responsible for what happened in the region after your soldiers headed home.
[/quote]
Communism followed us. We stopped it. It’s all but dead now - save for a few billion Chinese, a few Koreans, and Cuba.
Central America is close enough. Due to our efforts - it has become quite the vacation spot, and americans are pumping billions of dollars into their economy.
This was the question you posed:
2) Do you see anyone blame you for what happened afterwards?
Now maybe you should fucking keep up, or pay the fuck attention to your own words. If you feel the need to clarify because you don’t like the answer you got - knock yourself out. But I haven’t the inclination or the stomach to look at your ass and attempt to read your mind.
Go build more bombs.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Communism followed us. [/quote]
It didn’t follow you. Nicaragua is NOT the US. The Sandanistas overthrew the Somozas (who by the way, came to power as part of a US-engineered pact in 1927) and that had to happen sooner or later. So stop saying that Vietnam was responsible for what happened in Nicaragua. It makes you sound like an ass.
[quote]2) Do you see anyone blame you for what happened afterwards?
Now maybe you should fucking keep up, or pay the fuck attention to your own words. If you feel the need to clarify because you don’t like the answer you got - knock yourself out. But I haven’t the inclination or the stomach to look at your ass and attempt to read your mind. [/quote]
Ok. I see that my question could be interpreted in both ways. Still, my question was not directed to you in the first place. I asked Zap who said “And how many did they murder in SE Asia after we left?”.
Clear?
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Communism followed us.
It didn’t follow you. Nicaragua is NOT the US. The Sandanistas overthrew the Somozas (who by the way, came to power as part of a US-engineered pact in 1927) and that had to happen sooner or later. So stop saying that Vietnam was responsible for what happened in Nicaragua. It makes you sound like an ass.
2) Do you see anyone blame you for what happened afterwards?
Now maybe you should fucking keep up, or pay the fuck attention to your own words. If you feel the need to clarify because you don’t like the answer you got - knock yourself out. But I haven’t the inclination or the stomach to look at your ass and attempt to read your mind.
Ok. I see that my question could be interpreted in both ways. Still, my question was not directed to you in the first place. I asked Zap who said “And how many did they murder in SE Asia after we left?”.
Clear?[/quote]
Your ignorance/defense of communism in my hemisphere not withstanding - crystal.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Your ignorance/defense of communism in my hemisphere not withstanding - crystal.
[/quote]
Do you feel threatened?
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
And how exactly is Central America “home” for you? Did you pick that bit up from the Monroe doctrine?
…
[/quote]
Because they are our close neighbors and there are millions of them in our country. What happens there matters here.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Do you feel threatened?[/quote]
Why would we feel threatened? Communism never hurt anyone.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
…
Nothing like a good Stab-in-the-back legend.
You DID TOTALLY bomb the shit out of NV.
…[/quote]
Only for a few campaigns. For the most part we let them take the war to the south. Big mistake.
After we pulled out it was a couple years before the NVA tanks rolled south. A bombing campaign likely would have made them withdraw.
If we didn’t wash our hands of the whole deal a massive bloodbath in SE Asia would likely have been averted. As it stands how many did the commies and their allies kill in the region after we left?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Only for a few campaigns. [/quote]
Nice job downplaying the agent orange death squadrons.
Again, do you hear anyone blame you for inaction there?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Your ignorance/defense of communism in my hemisphere not withstanding - crystal.
Do you feel threatened?
[/quote]
About?
I think I am in love with her too:
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Only for a few campaigns.
Nice job downplaying the agent orange death squadrons.
If we didn’t wash our hands of the whole deal a massive bloodbath in SE Asia would likely have been averted.
Again, do you hear anyone blame you for inaction there?[/quote]
Um, yeah. There is massive guilt and an understanding that if the US didn’t leave it wouldn’t have happened. The reason this is not discussed in detail is the MSM and academics that opposed the war don’t want to admit that the result of getting their way was bloodbath.
I was a kid and I remember the end of the war, the boat people fleeing the horrors and the sense of guilt our country felt for abandoning those poor people.
I didn’t think your question was serious.
BTW lixy, what is an agent orange death squadron?
You know it was a defoliant that we used in the south in areas Americans operated to deprive the VC of hiding places don’t you?
[quote]skaz05 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
sigh I like Ron Paul. He’s my guy, but dammit, I hate people who like him. All these hosers love him for his anti-war stance; his WORST stance is what people love him for. This is so damned lame. It’s kind of like how I hate Bush, but I hate people who hate Bush even worse.
mstott25- Why would you have Paul as your #1 but Thompson as your #5? Thompson is the only other guy in the entire race, (both dems and reps) who isn’t either a socialist, bigot, or authoritarian. Thompson is the only other guy who has even spoken the word “freedom” in the entire group…I’ve been watching.
mike
My thoughts exactly.
Now, if I can only figure out what in the holy hell your avatar is a schematic of.
It’s instructions on how to heat up an MRE (meal ready to eat). They use a zinc heater or something. You stick the MRE in the bag with the heater, add water, put the whole thing into the cardboard box, and rest it up against a rock or something. in a few minutes your MRE is nice and hot. You can then use the heater as a hand warmer. The spaghetti and meatballs MRE was the best. You get peanut butter and some M&Ms with it.[/quote]
Yeah, spagetti wasn’t too bad. I liked the wax burrito best though. I just love the instructions because of the “rock or something”. I still can’t help but laugh every time I accidently say rock or something in conversation.
mike
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Um, yeah. There is massive guilt and an understanding that if the US didn’t leave it wouldn’t have happened. [/quote]
Strange…I didn’t see any massive guilt for the millions your troops killed though.
My question was clear: Did anyone ever say that the US is evil because you withdrew from Vietnam?
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
As for everyone liking Ron Paul for his anti-war stance I’d have to disagree. The first time I ever heard of Paul or liked him was in the documentary Freedom to Fascism about the Federal Reserve. Look at how this thread was started and what Paul says about Martial Law, the Economy, smaller government etc.
I’m more or less excited that somebody came along with a different perspective who’s not so polished or “politicized” that he’s afraid to speak what he believes. I think in a one on one debate Paul would have more of a grasp on any position than the other candidates be it social security, the economy, the war, immigration, abortion or other issues.
As far as your view on Iraq I really wonder why people are so gung ho about this war. It seems like the main argument is for stability in that region but I just don’t think that’s a price our soldiers need to pay. This whole war was a mistake to begin with and Ron Paul seems like he actually cares about the troops and wants to get them out of an unnecessary war. I understand why people disagree but I don’t understand why they are so vehemently opposed to this viewpoint.
As far as Thompson I’ve seen and heard very little. I don’t even know if I like the guy but it’s not hard for me to like him above the candidates I didn’t list. So far Thompson is already talking about war with Iran which I hope doesn’t happen and he’s already discussing Al Qaeda in the U.S. and keeping this whole fear factor machine rolling.
He also said something about Osama bin Laden being symbolism or something that kind of confused me. Maybe he’s cleared that up after what I read. So Thompson is still tentative for me but I’m giving him a fair shot and would love to see him in the debates.
[/quote]
Freedom to Fascism and Waco: Rules of Engagement were some of the documentaries that helped rock me out of years of zombielike republicanism. It was Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative that sealed the deal.
Now, as for my thoughts on Iraq, they are many. Firstly, I don’t understand this talk of possibly losing the war. WE WON THE WAR! It’s over baby. We steamrolled in and kicked some ass. Put another notch in the belt for American military prowess. As Fred Thompson rightly claimed, “No one has shed more blood for the freedom of other people than Americans.”
Secondly, My concern isn’t a stable Middle East. Good luck with that. Anyone that wants to stabilize the area hasn’t been paying attention to the news for the last 3,000 years. My concern is that an attack on freedom anywhere is an attack on freedom everywhere. That said, we can do a lot of fighting at home laugh If you truly believe in universal rights, then you’re either an asshole or a damned coward to let your fellow man suffer along without them. The American pussy talks about the need for health care and school lunches while ignoring the genocidal maniacs across the globe.
Third, I do believe if we left the Iraqis would step up and fight for their freedom. Sure it’d be bloody, but they’d man up. And if they didn’t then they don’t deserve their freedom. We gave them a fighting chance. That said, do not confuse not deserving their freedom and not having it as their right.
But the main point here is that I want us to at least have some presence in Iraq because if we leave it won’t be a matter of self-determination. It will be a matter of Iraqis fighting Iraqis that are being propped up by foreign countries. If everyone would just stay out and let the Iraqis do their thing then I’d be okay with us leaving.
One last major rant. It is rather shitty that the U.S. military is used for this kind of thing. But we can’t necessarily let private businesses do it on their own without them becoming like the East India Trading Company. Hrmm, then again, maybe they could, provided they were better held accountable. Anyshit, I digress. Look, unfortunately thanks to fuckers like the ATF American citizens cannot freely defend freedom across the world without putting on a uniform and doing the fedgov’s bidding. I don’t remember the names and don’t want to look them up, but the ATF just busted some dude that bought guns from an undercover agent to send over to Cambodia with him and some friends to fight the communists there. Now he’s going to prison. Wave that flag high you ATF fucks. I hope it makes them feel better at night to know they’re the US’s answer to the Nazi brownshirts.
mike
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Um, yeah. There is massive guilt and an understanding that if the US didn’t leave it wouldn’t have happened.
Strange…I didn’t see any massive guilt for the millions your troops killed though.
My question was clear: Did anyone ever say that the US is evil because you withdrew from Vietnam?[/quote]
Evil? No. Guilt and responsibility for the aftermath? Yes.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I didn’t mean to jar you from your fantasy.
But, I’m giving your candidate all the respect that any candidate deserves who has not cracked 3% in any legitimate national poll.[/quote]
It’s not about respecting Ron Paul. It’s simply about carrying on a discussion of current events related to his campaign.
What is it that you want? What are you trying to accomplish?
I’ve got no hidden agenda. I’m here to talk about Ron Paul because I find him interesting.
That’s all there is to it. You’re acting very belligerent by constantly stating that, “he can’t win”, when people merely want to discuss the latest event in his campaign.
You’re not contributing anything to this discussion because you keep repeating the same thing over and over. If you were, for example, posting current news links that supported your view of his chances, that would constitute a valid contribution.
I don’t know if you noticed, but I posted several criticisms of certain things associated with Ron Paul’s campaign. You should follow my example if you want bring up negative viewpoints. Make them relevant and backed up by current information.
If I unequivocally declare that Ron Paul can’t win, will you leave me alone?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Paul wants to give AQ exactly what it wants. He wants to withdraw from the world. It is a complete joke. I cannot believe anyone supports this clown.[/quote]
The problem is that you have it backwards. We’ve been giving them precisely what they want since the WoT began.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/BinLadenWins.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28690
Man, you just don’t understand what terrorism is and how this shit works. Read the articles. Discuss.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
No one likes Germany. [/quote]
Nonsense.
Germany’s got a beautiful landscape, friendly people, and lots of breweries. What’s not to like?
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Paul wants to give AQ exactly what it wants. He wants to withdraw from the world. It is a complete joke. I cannot believe anyone supports this clown.
The problem is that you have it backwards. We’ve been giving them precisely what they want since the WoT began.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/BinLadenWins.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28690
Man, you just don’t understand what terrorism is and how this shit works. Read the articles. Discuss.[/quote]
No we have not. That is like saying we gave Japan what they wanted after Pearl Harbor.
They want us to withdraw from the middle east and specifically Saudi Arabia so they can try to take over.