OT: RIP GOAT ALI

[K...]

I can only speak for Iran in that the beloved homeland is justified in hating Americas policies...1953, 25 years of a dictator, support for Saddam in Iraq war, sanctions and major media bias... a book of crimes by UsA against Iran

And yet once this supreme leader dies the memories of the revolution are gone (ok they'll replace him with another old hardliner but they'll run out soon). Iran will have to modernize or be dragged into the Arabs lost century (no oil demand, global warming, no security, no strong Arab leadership).

[whitemamba]

Is knowing about a murder just as bad as murdering someone?

No.

But like I said, we're not morally "clean" in that regard, since American companies did sell Saddam agents, but it's a huge stretch to claim that we "armed" him, which suggests his military capability was non-existent until Uncle Sam helped out.

I've showed you photo ops dated from the early 70s of Chirac and Hussein hanging out, one even at a nuclear facility. It's a stone cold fact that, other than the USSR, France sold him most of his conventional weapons. Then in the late 70's, a German firm built his chemical weapons plant. And then the bank was open for defense contractors. Here's who sold Saddam the most:



So why do you place the primary moral blame on us?

As for media bias, it's all agenda driven. I really hope you don't think supposed small market outlets like Russia Today are "truthful," when it's basically the media arm of the Kremlin. Or Rense or Alternet, which are run by far-far-left moonbats. Or Breitbert, which is the opposite of Rense and Alternet. That's why I try to follow the money in this regard.

In my opinion it's primarily on us because we are so used to playing big brother and enforcing the world. We always seem to be in the spotlight.We need to set a better example. Following the cons ution would be a good start. I think US politics need a major change. This government is not run for Americans , it's fun for Israelis if you ask me. I could give two s about the Palestinian conflict, I'm talking inside the US.

[whitemamba]

I think you need to read more. You seem to only consider the superficial reality of these situations ("The US funded a coup against Allende in Chile, who the people wanted. The US is evil!") without digging deeper into the context.

Now, I'm not justifying everything the United States does (I was fervently against Iraq 2, and think Bush and all of his cronies should be in jail. And I'm against the War on Terror, since I think the end result of that will just create more terrorists. I think terror should be fought like the FBI fought the mafia. Clandestine, using intel, arrest/assassinate key figures and leaders, etc), but these situations aren't as black-and-white as you make them seem, and each side can mount a convincing argument for their position.

i try to I really do. I completely agree with what you said , but mine does further , I genuinely don't believe we should of been in any of these wars , not even the Cuban missile crisis with the soviets , not even WW1. You nailed it when you said we create more terrorists. I actually think we have been doing that and continue to do that to make majority of the population constantly fearful. We always need a boogie man, and a "terrorist" is perfect it a never ending image , they can constantly keep doing for ever. I mean can you actually get me to believe Bin Laden was actually killed by the US? Lol we threw him into the ocean. As for RUSSIAN TODAY, it's the same as CNN or FOX, but worse it's apparently completely run by the government, VICE did an episode on it. From time to time they drop a truth bomb though.

[midnightpulp]

In my opinion it's primarily on us because we are so used to playing big brother and enforcing the world. We always seem to be in the spotlight.We need to set a better example. Following the cons ution would be a good start. I think US politics need a major change. This government is not run for Americans , it's fun for Israelis if you ask me. I could give two s about the Palestinian conflict, I'm talking inside the US.

I don't disagree with that. I'm a non-interventionist who believes in a "National Defense," not a "National Offense," so that means I'm in favor of closing down the 200 or whatever bases around the world. Most of those bases are holdovers from World War 2 and the Cold War. Our allies in Europe are fully capable of defending themselves now. I'd rather put those bases in struggling US cities that could use an economic boost. I'm from a town that went from flourishing to -hole overnight because a base closed (and with it, 11,000 jobs).

I'm also tired of babysitting Israel. That whole conflict is none of our business. Let them sort it out.

But even though I'm a non-interventionist, I don't automatically believe we were always in the "moral wrong" during our conflicts. And my biggest irk is when "the rest of the world" points self-righteous fingers at us (especially those from Europe) when their hands our covered with as much, if not, more blood. For example, I bet the average Dutch citizen doesn't know firms in their country sold Saddam over 4000 tons of chemicals. Or the average German knowing that they pretty much built Saddam's chemical weapons programs.

Ask them, and it's "Murkadidit." It just pisses me off. Then they go as far to denigrate our Vietnam War (we were on the right side) and Korean War (we were on the right side) efforts. It's an insult to those who died.

It's a double-standard. After the attacks in France, the French turned on the jets and bombed the out of ISIS. And I'm sure "innocents" were killed in those bombing runs. But the world cheered. Terrorists fly planes into our buildings, killing 3000 of not just Americans, but from people all around the world, our intelligence leads us to the Taliban. We go bomb, and yet we're decried as war criminals.

[whitemamba]

I don't disagree with that. I'm a non-interventionist who believes in a "National Defense," not a "National Offense," so that means I'm in favor of closing down the 200 or whatever bases around the world. Most of those bases are holdovers from World War 2 and the Cold War. Our allies in Europe are fully capable of defending themselves now. I'd rather put those bases in struggling US cities that could use an economic boost. I'm from a town that went from flourishing to -hole overnight because a base closed (and with it, 11,000 jobs).

I'm also tired of babysitting Israel. That whole conflict is none of our business. Let them sort it out.

But even though I'm a non-interventionist, I don't automatically believe we were always in the "moral wrong" during our conflicts. And my biggest irk is when "the rest of the world" points self-righteous fingers at us (especially those from Europe) when their hands our covered with as much, if not, more blood. For example, I bet the average Dutch citizen doesn't know firms in their country sold Saddam over 4000 tons of chemicals. Or the average German knowing that they pretty much built Saddam's chemical weapons programs.

Ask them, and it's "Murkadidit." It just pisses me off. Then they go as far to denigrate our Vietnam War (we were on the right side) and Korean War (we were on the right side) efforts. It's an insult to those who died.

It's a double-standard. After the attacks in France, the French turned on the jets and bombed the out of ISIS. And I'm sure "innocents" were killed in those bombing runs. But the world cheered. Terrorists fly planes into our buildings, killing 3000 of not just Americans, but from people all around the world, our intelligence leads us to the Taliban. We go bomb, and yet we're decried as war criminals.

This post is gold. Everything is money, my question to you is how do we get back to our founding fathers ways?

[midnightpulp]

i try to I really do. I completely agree with what you said , but mine does further , I genuinely don't believe we should of been in any of these wars , not even the Cuban missile crisis with the soviets , not even WW1. You nailed it when you said we create more terrorists. I actually think we have been doing that and continue to do that to make majority of the population constantly fearful. We always need a boogie man, and a "terrorist" is perfect it a never ending image , they can constantly keep doing for ever. I mean can you actually get me to believe Bin Laden was actually killed by the US? Lol we threw him into the ocean. As for RUSSIAN TODAY, it's the same as CNN or FOX, but worse it's apparently completely run by the government, VICE did an episode on it. From time to time they drop a truth bomb though.

We were attacked in both WWI and WWII, though. German U-Boats were targeting ocean liners, sinking the Lusitania, which claimed 130 American lives. Still, Wilson want to keep out the war, but the UK really turned up their PR campaign stateside and we were eventually "guilted" into joining the effort. That said, I would probably agree we should've stayed out WWI, but the UK was the power at the time, our greatest ally, so we had to join to "keep them happy."

And obviously Pearl Harbor in the 2nd instance.

As for Korea, I don't know. I'm not sure Korea falling into Soviet hands (Stalin wanted Korea) would've been the best thing. Stalin was a maniac and not some peaceful Marxist who was for "the people." What happens if Stalin captured Korea? Would Japan be next on his radar?

That's what I'm saying, none of these situations are ever black-and-white with obvious solutions.

[midnightpulp]

This post is gold. Everything is money, my question to you is how do we get back to our founding fathers ways?

Merciless checks-and-balances on our government. I don't think there should be "terms," a political leader should be in danger of losing his position at any time, just like an employee at a regular job.

Non-Interventionist foreign policy. Let the rest-of-world sort their own out.

[whitemamba]

We were attacked in both WWI and WWII, though. German U-Boats were targeting ocean liners, sinking the Lusitania, which claimed 130 American lives. Still, Wilson want to keep out the war, but the UK really turned up their PR campaign stateside and we were eventually "guilted" into joining the effort. That said, I would probably agree we should've stayed out WWI, but the UK was the power at the time, our greatest ally, so we had to join to "keep them happy."

And obviously Pearl Harbor in the 2nd instance.

As for Korea, I don't know. I'm not sure Korea falling into Soviet hands (Stalin wanted Korea) would've been the best thing. Stalin was a maniac and some peaceful Marxist who was for "the people." What happens if Stalin captured Korea? Would Japan be next on his radar?

That's what I'm saying, none of these situations are ever black-and-white with obvious solutions.

You don't buy those rumors about Pearl Harbor ? We knew the attack was coming but purposely did nothing to get us into the war? I think Wolfowitz said in the project for a new American century, "we need another Pearl Harbor " that's for 9/11 obviously but if we did that recently why wouldn't we do it in the past? I just find it so hard to believe that we couldn't see a ing army of airplanes coming towards one of our biggest bases. Blows my mind away. Immediately after that tragedy we jumped right in with full public support, sound familiar ? I feel bad for all those lives lost, I genuinely do. The government I feel doesn't value our soldiers.

[whitemamba]

Merciless checks-and-balances on our government. I don't think there should be "terms," a political leader should be in danger of losing his position at any time, just like an employee at a regular job.

Non-Interventionist foreign policy. Let the rest-of-world sort their own out.

basically a Ron Paul style foreign policy?

[midnightpulp]

You don't buy those rumors about Pearl Harbor ? We knew the attack was coming but purposely did nothing to get us into the war? I think Wolfowitz said in the project for a new American century, "we need another Pearl Harbor " that's for 9/11 obviously but if we did that recently why wouldn't we do it in the past? I just find it so hard to believe that we couldn't see a ing army of airplanes coming towards one of our biggest bases. Blows my mind away. Immediately after that tragedy we jumped right in with full public support, sound familiar ? I feel bad for all those lives lost, I genuinely do. The government I feel doesn't value our soldiers.

Until confirmed, they are just rumors. Also, if they knew the attack was coming then that means Japan was obviously an enemy who probably would've succeeded at some point by either attacking a domestic target or attacking US ships in open water. Another rumor is that Churchill and Co. withheld intelligence of the attack so that Japan would succeed and thus bait us into the war (this is another reason European self-righteousness pisses me off to no end. We were dragged/baited into the two most violent wars in history by European bull ).

I guess until we have definitive evidence, we have to take the "official truth" at face value. But ideally, I would've preferred we support our European allies against the Nazis with money and manufacturing rather than a commitment of ground forces.

[whitemamba]

Until confirmed, they are just rumors. Also, if they knew the attack was coming then that means Japan was obviously an enemy who probably would've succeeded at some point by either attacking a domestic target or attacking US ships in open water. Another rumor is that Churchill and Co. withheld intelligence of the attack so that Japan would succeed and thus bait us into the war (this is another reason European self-righteousness pisses me off to no end. We were dragged/baited into the two most violent wars in history by European bull ).

I guess until we have definitive evidence, we have to take the "official truth" at face value. But ideally, I would've preferred we support our European allies against the Nazis with money and manufacturing rather than a commitment of ground forces.

Fair enough. But I mean radars , technology etc.. How do we miss a fleet , it just baffles me.

[DMC]

Until confirmed, they are just rumors. Also, if they knew the attack was coming then that means Japan was obviously an enemy who probably would've succeeded at some point by either attacking a domestic target or attacking US ships in open water. Another rumor is that Churchill and Co. withheld intelligence of the attack so that Japan would succeed and thus bait us into the war (this is another reason European self-righteousness pisses me off to no end. We were dragged/baited into the two most violent wars in history by European bull ).

I guess until we have definitive evidence, we have to take the "official truth" at face value. But ideally, I would've preferred we support our European allies against the Nazis with money and manufacturing rather than a commitment of ground forces.

Also there's a slippery slope (no pun intended) here. If we knew the Japs were coming, they knew we knew but came anyhow so were they complicit? Was it a collusion?


That's how conspiracy theories fail. The theorist gives one party unrealistic ability and denies it to anyone else. 9/11, for example... if the government was in on it, then we're to believe that information is only ever leaked when it's for a purpose that suits the government, that our government with all its failures has futuristic understanding and abilities where clandestine information is concerned. As if a group of people could go in and plant explosives, another group could fly in planes, and yet no one ever came forward to leak the information.

All this pulled off under the everlasting veil of secrecy, but the POTUS can't on an interns dress without the world finding out.

Right.

Sounds like too much free time for the theorists.

[midnightpulp]

Also there's a slippery slope (no pun intended) here. If we knew the Japs were coming, they knew we knew but came anyhow so were they complicit? Was it a collusion?


That's how conspiracy theories fail. The theorist gives one party unrealistic ability and denies it to anyone else. 9/11, for example... if the government was in on it, then we're to believe that information is only ever leaked when it's for a purpose that suits the government, that our government with all its failures has futuristic understanding and abilities where clandestine information is concerned. As if a group of people could go in and plant explosives, another group could fly in planes, and yet no one ever came forward to leak the information.

All this pulled off under the everlasting veil of secrecy, but the POTUS can't on an interns dress without the world finding out.

Right.

Sounds like too much free time for the theorists.

[whitemamba]

Also there's a slippery slope (no pun intended) here. If we knew the Japs were coming, they knew we knew but came anyhow so were they complicit? Was it a collusion?


That's how conspiracy theories fail. The theorist gives one party unrealistic ability and denies it to anyone else. 9/11, for example... if the government was in on it, then we're to believe that information is only ever leaked when it's for a purpose that suits the government, that our government with all its failures has futuristic understanding and abilities where clandestine information is concerned. As if a group of people could go in and plant explosives, another group could fly in planes, and yet no one ever came forward to leak the information.

All this pulled off under the everlasting veil of secrecy, but the POTUS can't on an interns dress without the world finding out.

Right.

Sounds like too much free time for the theorists.

I dont think that made a difference, it was a suicide mission was it not? These crazy ers nose diving their planes into our military. Clearly they didn't give a , at least that's what it seems like, so it really did not matter, the result would of been the same. As for 9/11, they need to do an investigation on it again. I mean when the families of the victims are calling for it, that should be enough, there are a few unanswered questions that raise concern. I mean the fact that if it is even mentioned, people get ridiculed and called crazy? What kind of democracy is that? If the government has nothing to hide they should be willing. Which leads me to thinking about those Saudi's. How can we keep such a tight friendship with them when every supposed hijacker was from Saudi. Did they withhold intelligence?Why did we not punish them? Think about it. The FastTrack Visa program, this and that, we need answers.

[Ghazi]

Merciless checks-and-balances on our government. I don't think there should be "terms," a political leader should be in danger of losing his position at any time, just like an employee at a regular job.

Non-Interventionist foreign policy. Let the rest-of-world sort their own out.

USA would not be hated in the world if it adopted a non-interventionist policy. The problem is they intervene EVERYWHERE, literally every continent... and often times the results aren't good.

[apalisoc_9]

I hate the japanese, but mid trying to make a case against them in ww2 because nmy roots are there?

Literly after the US kicked the japanese away..The Americans invaded the philippines policy so much so that ot avtually led to a mini war between the US and pinoys.

Everywhere the US goes they the country up.

The only ones benefiting from a ed up world is America.

[K...]

I hate the japanese, but mid trying to make a case against them in ww2 because nmy roots are there?

Literly after the US kicked the japanese away..The Americans invaded the philippines policy so much so that ot avtually led to a mini war between the US and pinoys.

Everywhere the US goes they the country up.

The only ones benefiting from a ed up world is America.

Oh cmon, the Philippines never were anything special and if we hadn't ed u, Japan would have. China would have. Asia is just as warmongering as Europe and peace there is temporary.

The US isn't about nation building. It was about kicking the Communist state to death. That required us to punish the small countries who tried to play it two ways. Since the defeat of Russia , us power had opened up the world. The post war order doesn't benefit everyone, but it allows modernization. If you thought the corrupt Russians were going to invest in your country look at Cuba and what they got.


Y

[midnightpulp]

I hate the japanese, but mid trying to make a case against them in ww2 because nmy roots are there?

Literly after the US kicked the japanese away..The Americans invaded the philippines policy so much so that ot avtually led to a mini war between the US and pinoys.

Everywhere the US goes they the country up.

The only ones benefiting from a ed up world is America.

That isn't true. We've occupied West Germany and Japan to the point where, if we wanted to honor our English ancestors, could've absorbed them into our "empire" and made them defacto US states. Japan was a war-mongering nation whose people worshipped the Emperor as a literal God. After we gave them a much needed punch in the mouth with the two atomic bombs, we occupied the country, built up their industry, imported goods from them, and started businesses there.

"So what. Japan is just a US puppet state."

Yeah, that's why they basically singlehandedly killed the Detroit auto industry. They also killed our consumer electronics industry. Not out of spite or anything, but because they simply made better products for cheaper.

And you're really going to claim that South Korea is worse off? Or Vietnam? Fun fact about Vietnam: Their economy stagnated for 20 plus years after the Communist take over until they softened on hardline socialism and employed a market economy. Before the Communist takeover, South Vietnam was becoming something of an international economic player.

Pre-1965 period saw a rather rapid GDP growth rate of the South Vietnam's economy, accompanied by a reasonable CPI rise. The state budget of the Republic of Vietnam enjoyed a surplus in the early stage but soon turned into deficit from 1961. Investment remained strong, industry and agriculture generally retained a high gr

Economy of the Republic of Vietnam in this period proved to be progressive, however, political conflicts and unrests (armed conflicts between factions, continuous coup d'état, emergence of the Viet Cong) confined the efficiency of those policies.

Give me some reading on the US-Philippine situation, but it's a huge, huge stretch to claim you better off before the US intervened, when the Japanese were killing Filipinos for fun.

C'mon bro, you have to be fair. I know we have some blood on our hands, but compare us to the British Empire, the French Empire, the Nazis, the Soviets, and we're by far the most "benevolent" superpower in history.