[Renegade]

But that economic imeprialism cannot exist without the threat of a big stick behind it. Either through a blockade (Cuba was blockaded because His  Excellency The President of Cuba dared to free his people from slavery to American corporations) or through assassinations or military intervention (Panama, Venezuela) The U.S. enslaves other countries with the threat of force.

Do you really think foreign governments enjoy having their people work slave labor to support the U.S. government. The first step literally is bribes, and this is largely military funding, and thus war through proxy. For instance, the Nicaragua contras, the Columbian paramilitaries, the entire bloody Egyptian, Saudi and Pakistani governments.

We don't have to go in to oppress their people, we just pay for it. War waged on our orders, with our funding is still a war waged by our government. We gave Saddam permission to go to war with Iran if not out right ordered him to. This was NOT Saddam's war, it was an American war and aught to be viewed as such. The pigs in Washington order everything that their apostate regimes do, and when they go to far without jeopardizing our interests ( the massacre of pro democracy protesters in Kyrgyzstan, the Nicaragua Contra mass murders, the gassing of the kurds) we either aid in covering it up or wash our hands and feign ignorance.

The U.S. government is commiting violence even when our troops are not directly involved in any violence because we fund it. You want to try to tell me that if I buy someone a gun, tell them who to kill, and then help them cover up the body that I'm not a murderer? Bullshit!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) It has nothing to do with a big stick. It has to do with the country collapsing without our economic support. For example, we get cheap labor in country X. Country X decided hmm maybe we should increase wages, but can't because we say oh we'll just leave the country then. That has nothing to do with "big stick", its simply doing business. That may be immoral but it isn't "imperialism" and it isn't military.

2) We don't really "bribe" those countries, we just support them. There's a difference. It's not a secret either.. everyone knows we are good friends with the Saudi's and everyone knows we funded the Contras.

3) We didn't want Iraq to fight a war with Iran but we also didn't mind them going at it. All we care about with Iran-Iraq is for them to balance each other out; whether that be through peace or through a war.

4) Depends what you mean.. most of the indirect support we give to places has been against opposing military forces anyway. So its more like, someone's coming after another guy with a gun, you give that guy the gun, and he shoots the first person.

This isn't to say America is perfect, far from it.. but we're not exactly hell's tool either. And I still stand by the fact that most of the places we have intervened in, benefited immensily.

This post has been edited by Renegade: 02 July 2005 - 03:29 AM

[J m HofMarN]

1: So you're saying that foreign governments are completely dependent on American money, and there's nothing wrong with that at all? Come on man. What if the place where you lived had to do what another country said for fear of economic collapse? That takes away your freedom and I'd rather be poor and free than the wealthiest slave. Whether its a threat of military intervention or of fucking a country's economy the U.S. still rules through threats.

2: Everyone does not know we funded the contras. If everyone knew that the US, Oliver North, and then president Reagan were responsible for 20000 murders they'd have been tried or hung from lamp posts like they deserve. The capitalist media largely ignores things that our allies do wrong. Noone mentions Saudi Arabias atrocius human rights record or the mass murders comitted by the contras. And I think that what we do is indeed tantamount to bribery.

3: So we just bought them the weapons, trained them in using their weapons and torturing prisoners, gave them all sorts of aid, etc etc because we didnt hope they'd go to war with Iran? A likely story.

4: Bullshit. What about a thousand unarmed men and women butchered in Kyrgyzstan with America's blessing? What about the Egyptian campaign of torture and violence against the opposition Islamic Brotherhood? The governments we support have no qualms about murdering peaceful opponents or political opponents. Thus, since they make peaceful revolution impossible, those who love freedom have no choice but to wage guerilla warfare against them, and so it looks as though they are the aggressors which seems to be the mistaken impression you're under.

Here is a list of countries the U.S. has intervened in:

Egypt
Panama
Nicaragua
Bolivia
Saudi Arabia
The Congo
Chile
Palestine
Saudi Arabia
Vietnam
Cuba
El Salvador
Columbia
Venezuela
East Timor
Pakistan
Iraq
Iran

All of these countries have suffered deaths due to the intervention of the Americans, some losing a few hundred, some losing millions. Yes, some countries profit from imperialism's grip upon them, but the money they receive is stained with the blood of peasants.

[Renegade]

1: So you're saying that foreign governments are completely dependent on American money, and there's nothing wrong with that at all? Come on man. What if the place where you lived had to do what another country said for fear of economic collapse? That takes away your freedom and I'd rather be poor and free than the wealthiest slave. Whether its a threat of military intervention or of fucking a country's economy the U.S. still rules through threats.

2: Everyone does not know we funded the contras. If everyone knew that the US, Oliver North, and then president Reagan were responsible for 20000 murders they'd have been tried or hung from lamp posts like they deserve. The capitalist media largely ignores things that our allies do wrong. Noone mentions Saudi Arabias atrocius human rights record or the mass murders comitted by the contras. And I think that what we do is indeed tantamount to bribery.

3: So we just bought them the weapons, trained them in using their weapons and torturing prisoners, gave them all sorts of aid, etc etc because we didnt hope they'd go to war with Iran? A likely story.

4: Bullshit. What about a thousand unarmed men and women butchered in Kyrgyzstan with America's blessing? What about the Egyptian campaign of torture and violence against the opposition Islamic Brotherhood? The governments we support have no qualms about murdering peaceful opponents or political opponents. Thus, since they make peaceful revolution impossible, those who love freedom have no choice but to wage guerilla warfare against them, and so it looks as though they are the aggressors which seems to be the mistaken impression you're under.

Here is a list of countries the U.S. has intervened in:

Egypt
Panama
Nicaragua
Bolivia
Saudi Arabia
The Congo
Chile
Palestine
Saudi Arabia
Vietnam
Cuba
El Salvador
Columbia
Venezuela
East Timor
Pakistan
Iraq
Iran

All of these countries have suffered deaths due to the intervention of the Americans, some losing a few hundred, some losing millions. Yes, some countries profit from imperialism's grip upon them, but the money they receive is stained with the blood of peasants.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) Never said they didn't. America uses economic means to control foreign govt's. I agreed with you on this point. But the point I'm making is its unavoidable in a capatalistic society and America is NOT the only country that does this.

2) Everyone DOES know we funded the contras. There was no link to Reagan that could be made so he didn't get impeached (he prolly did know about it though in my opinion). As for North, he was convicted and took the blame for it.

3) We didn't do that stuff till the war STARTED, and that was to make sure Iraq didn't fall to Iran. We also gave Iran weapons through iran contra to balance things further. Like I said, America has never cared whether Iraq/Iran were in peace or war, they just wanted them to balance each other out so nobody became too powerful in the mid east. They didn't support a war though because they feared one side would win, so once the war broke out there next plan was to make sure it was simply balanced.

4) Well in all honestly I don't know the situations in a lot of those places so I'll talk about the ones I do know about firmly. In terms of Saudi Arabia I don't know what your referring too. If it wasn't this ruling party, I don't see any likelyhood of a more "fair" govt in the most radical Islamic country in the world. There is a significant portion of that country that things the Saudi's are ALREADY too nice to America and should be totally more anti western. Chile, yes, that was a bullshit intervention, agreed. I don't know what your referring to by Cuba, but I'm guessing its bay of pigs/trying to assasinate Fidel. Ya we did intervene but my sympathy for Fidel stops at the realization that he's a brutal dictator himself. Cuba would be a lot better off if we were to prevent Fidel from coming to power before it happened. Vietnam intervention? Depends what you mean by wrong to intervene. When we left, or as a result of us leaving Vietnam 1.7-2 million people were slaughtered as a result in Vietnam/Cambodia. If we had stayed the course, and finished that war, that area most likely would be a lot better off. Same goes for Korea. Iraq intervention depends on which one. First gulf war was entirely justified, second one is well an argument for another thread. Iran intervention in '53 was ridiculous and yes another mistake by America.

[J m HofMarN]

1: No, America is the only country that does it on this level with this amount of brutality. The Soviet Union and the U.S. were completely equal on moral grounds. In fact if anything the Soviet Union was not evil enough to survive and the victory went to the government that was willing to kill the most people and was the most conniving. Sure the USSR looks bad now, but let's not forget that history is written by the victors.

2: So for the deaths of 20000 people we told Oliver North not to do it again and that's it? Bullshit. There should have been war crimes tribunals and hangings, plain and simple.

3: So we poured weapons into both countries so they could kill eachother, and you're making excuses for it?

4: Ignorance, plain and simple. The idea that a Muslims love dictatorship is propaganda that seeds itself in the minds of the ignorant. Palestine is a democracy and if not for the Zionist entity they would be doing fine. You're full of shit if your best excuse is "if we werent imposing tyranical government on them they'd just have another tyranical government"

His Excellency The President of Cuba is a great man and a hero. The only human rights abuses he is accused of is locking people up for conspiring with the U.S. and when they've tried to kill him so often he has every right to lock up traitors to his nation. He does not torture these people and they are given adequate food and medical care. You want human rights abuses look at the American apostate government that preceded His Excellency's revolution, or look at Guantanamo Bay.

If His Excellency had not liberated Cuba Fulgencio Battista would still be in power torturing and killing all who dared to oppose him. And what's more United Fruit and other such American corporations would still be enslaving the Cuban people. The revolutionary government is the first time Cuba has ever known true sovereignty from it's colonial oppressors.

On Vietnam you're once again wrong. The vast majority of those killed in Vietnam were killed by American soldiers or by the puppet government there. We indiscriminantly bombed them and butchered whole towns if they were thought to be allied with the liberation forces. Vietnam is now a sovereign nation for the first time in its existence and once again I am glad that the right side won.

North Korea I agree with you on, their regime is insane and I am glad that at least South Korea is free of them.

The first gulf war was not justified. The US had rich friends in Kuwait (an American backed dictatorship) and we went in to help them out. It had nothing to do with freedom or whatever, but was more to prevent Saddam from unifying the middle east.

If you should get a chance read up on what the U.S. did in the Congo. I'm sure you've heard of Mobutu Seseseko. What you don't know is that he was our man.

[Rhubarb]

[Renegade]

1: No, America is the only country that does it on this level with this amount of brutality. The Soviet Union and the U.S. were completely equal on moral grounds. In fact if anything the Soviet Union was not evil enough to survive and the victory went to the government that was willing to kill the most people and was the most conniving. Sure the USSR looks bad now, but let's not forget that history is written by the victors.

2: So for the deaths of 20000 people we told Oliver North not to do it again and that's it? Bullshit. There should have been war crimes tribunals and hangings, plain and simple.

3: So we poured weapons into both countries so they could kill eachother, and you're making excuses for it?

4: Ignorance, plain and simple. The idea that a Muslims love dictatorship is propaganda that seeds itself in the minds of the ignorant. Palestine is a democracy and if not for the Zionist entity they would be doing fine. You're full of shit if your best excuse is "if we werent imposing tyranical government on them they'd just have another tyranical government"

His Excellency The President of Cuba is a great man and a hero. The only human rights abuses he is accused of is locking people up for conspiring with the U.S. and when they've tried to kill him so often he has every right to lock up traitors to his nation. He does not torture these people and they are given adequate food and medical care. You want human rights abuses look at the American apostate government that preceded His Excellency's revolution, or look at Guantanamo Bay.

If His Excellency had not liberated Cuba Fulgencio Battista would still be in power torturing and killing all who dared to oppose him. And what's more United Fruit and other such American corporations would still be enslaving the Cuban people. The revolutionary government is the first time Cuba has ever known true sovereignty from it's colonial oppressors.

On Vietnam you're once again wrong. The vast majority of those killed in Vietnam were killed by American soldiers or by the puppet government there. We indiscriminantly bombed them and butchered whole towns if they were thought to be allied with the liberation forces. Vietnam is now a sovereign nation for the first time in its existence and once again I am glad that the right side won.

North Korea I agree with you on, their regime is insane and I am glad that at least South Korea is free of them.

The first gulf war was not justified. The US had rich friends in Kuwait (an American backed dictatorship) and we went in to help them out. It had nothing to do with freedom or whatever, but was more to prevent Saddam from unifying the middle east.

If you should get a chance read up on what the U.S. did in the Congo. I'm sure you've heard of Mobutu Seseseko. What you don't know is that he was our man.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) The USSR was on the same grounds as us? Please go look up the word gulag. Once you do get back to me. And other European countries do the same economic things that we do, just we do them more effectively.

2) Possibily ya, but my point was that contras aren't a secret, everyone knows we did it.

3) I'm not making excuses, your claim was that we gave the green light for Iraq to go to war and I corrected it with what actually happened.

4) Ah, so Fidel Castro is your hero.. well that explains quiet a bit. I'm guessing your also a fan of Stalin.

5) Wow.. that's pretty amazing. Please read up on the post withdrawel of American troops from Vietnam/Cambodia. You'll notice as a result of us not preventing them from falling to Communists, up to 2 million were mass murdered. But I guess the right side one right?

6) Well we actually entered it to also prevent Saudia Arabia from falling into Saddam's hands. But anyway, I love how you give sympathy to Saddam for invading other nations, but believe stopping him is "injustice". It's quiet amazing. And he didn't wanna unify the middle east, he just wanted CONTROL of the middle east for himself. There's a vast difference between the two.

7) The bottom line is in the Middle East you have an area where nearly every country is ruled by a dictatorship. Religious or non religious. Has nothing to do with propaganda or ignorance, its simply looking at the countries. Now some of that is our fault and some of its there fault. But make no mistake about it, if the Saudi Royals didn't control that country, a more anti western group would.

This post has been edited by Renegade: 03 July 2005 - 04:56 AM

[J m HofMarN]

1: I'll read up on the gulags as soon as you read up on slavery and the genocide against native Americans. The U.S. is worse than the former USSR.

2: You'd really be surprised. It may be common knowledge among people who actually know their history, but I went to a public school, so I'm quite well aware that the majority of Americans graduating high school probably couldnt find Nicaragua on a map, much less tell you about the contras.

3: Either way, the point is that war was lengthened and made more violent and destructive by U.S. imperialism.

4: No, I hold Stalin in the same regards I do Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon.

5: Where are you getting that figure? 3 million people died as a result of the war in Vietnam and it's historically stated that the majority of them were North Vietnamese. So, that means that 1.5 million North Vietnamese died at least. You claim two million were killed when the north vietnamese won.

So using your figures we have to assume that, after losing 1 million of their people without killing any South Vietnamese, the Cong decided that upon winning they would kill 1.5 million south vietnamese, and somehow also kill 500001 of their own people for no good reason, thus making the figures accurate. Riiiiight.

6: We didn't want the middle east to be controlled by Arabs who were out of our control. Therefore Saddam had to be stopped. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are appostate governments so the U.S. wanted to preserve them. If it had been another sovereign government that Saddam invaded, such as Iran, we wouldnt have cared.

7: The only remaining dictatorships in the middle east not affiliated with teh U.S. are Syria and Iran. The ONLY democracies in the middle east are Lebanon and Palestine, both of which are not affiliated with the U.S. However, EVERY U.S. allie in the middle east is in fact a dictatorship. So if you look at it by the numbers you'd see that half of all sovereign nations in the middle east are democracies, while all of the appostate governments are dictatorships.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Well said, my good friend. I can't think of anything to add to that.

[Dr Lecter]

I can! Down with democracy! In any other political system Bush and Blair would have been shot like 25 million times by now. Hehe I would hate to be a murder investigator investigating Bush or Blair's murder. News report: "President Bush was today assassinated, there are reported to be over 80 millions suspects, in the United States alone"

This post has been edited by Dr Lecter: 03 July 2005 - 04:44 PM

[Ham Salad]

I can! Down with democracy! In any other political system Bush and Blair would have been shot like 25 million times by now. Hehe I would hate to be a murder investigator investigating Bush or Blair's murder. News report: "President Bush was today assassinated, there are reported to be over 80 millions suspects, in the United States alone"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey John, how's that bullet in the forehead treating you?

Cordially,

Mark Chapman

PS- your widow makes horrible music and even worse fluxus installation art.
Rot In Peace

[Renegade]

1: I'll read up on the gulags as soon as you read up on slavery and the genocide against native Americans. The U.S. is worse than the former USSR.

2: You'd really be surprised. It may be common knowledge among people who actually know their history, but I went to a public school, so I'm quite well aware that the majority of Americans graduating high school probably couldnt find Nicaragua on a map, much less tell you about the contras.

3: Either way, the point is that war was  lengthened and made more violent and destructive by U.S. imperialism.

4: No, I hold Stalin in the same regards I do Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon.

5: Where are you getting that figure? 3 million people died as a result of the war in Vietnam and it's historically stated that the majority of them were North Vietnamese. So, that means that 1.5 million North Vietnamese died at least. You claim two million were killed when the north vietnamese won.

So using your figures we have to assume that, after losing 1 million of their people without killing any South Vietnamese, the Cong decided that upon winning they would kill 1.5 million south vietnamese, and somehow also kill 500001 of their own people for no good reason, thus making the figures accurate. Riiiiight.

6: We didn't want the middle east to be controlled by Arabs who were out of our control. Therefore Saddam had to be stopped. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are appostate governments so the U.S. wanted to preserve them. If it had been another sovereign government that Saddam invaded, such as Iran, we wouldnt have cared.

7: The only remaining dictatorships in the middle east not affiliated with teh U.S. are Syria and Iran. The ONLY democracies in the middle east are Lebanon and Palestine, both of which are not affiliated with the U.S. However, EVERY U.S. allie in the middle east is in fact a dictatorship. So if you look at it by the numbers you'd see that half of all sovereign nations in the middle east are democracies, while all of the appostate governments are dictatorships.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) That doesn't even make sense... your comparing something from the 16th-18th centuries to 20th century USSR. Ofcourse the United States has done awful shit in its past. But to say that 20th century USSR is the same as US is like me saying Hitler is the same as Churchill (which you probably think anyways)

2) It's common knowledge to most people who are affluent and that's all that matters. If you go to ANY country and select a group of uneducated people they won't know the history of their country either, the US is no different.

3) Well, your changing your argument on this was clever. First you said Iraq's invasion of Iran was an order by the US (clearly wrong), and when I corrected you, you've changed your argument to say that oh well its imperialism to help both too. That doesn't even make sense, it may be IMMORAL to help both but its not imperialism. You can't call EVERYTHING we do imperialism. Let me give you the definition of imperialism so you don't keep incorrectly labeling things it:

The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

4) Hmm... you hold a person who mass murdered up to 20 million people of his OWN to Nixon/Reagan? Well I guess your entitled to your own opinion but that's pretty ridiculous. There is no doubt Reagan/Nixon's policies resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, but the difference is the deliberate act of killing civilians compared to civilians dying as a result of war. Reagan/Nixon didn't TARGET civilians on purpose for the sake of killing them, they had a military aim, while Stalin mass murdered his own people for the sake of killing them.

5) Actually my bad, I meant mostly Cambodia as opposed to Vietnam. After we left Vietnam (and therefor Cambodia), the Khmer Rouge were able to fully come into power and mass murder/starve to death 1.7 million of their own people. Now you could say people were dying as a result of our bombing as well before that so I guess it's take your pick on who you want to die too and in what numbers.

6) Yes we would care lol. Don't you get it? We would ALWAYS care if ANYONE got invaded in the middle east. And you just contradicted yourself, we've already been through that America DOES care when Iraq and Iran fight as shown above in the post... they would do anything in their power to keep the fight balanced so nobody got too much power. The goal of the United States in the middle east has always been to prevent a major power that unites the oil industry.

7) Israel isn't a democracy but Palestine is? Sounds like bias to me. The only true democracies in the Middle East are Israel and Turkey if you consider them Middle East and Palestine now that Arafat is dead. Everyone else is a dictatorship or quasi dictatorship. Lebanon is in some ways but that's again partially because of our influence on Syria to get the hell out of Lebanon.

[Jordan]

There is no doubt Reagan/Nixon's policies resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, but the difference is the deliberate act of killing civilians compared to civilians dying as a result of war

Well said renegade.

[J m HofMarN]

Otal- Thank ye.

Lecter- I have one quibble: The proper death for fascists is hanging from a lamp post.

Ham Salad- Yeah! Damn that evil John Lennon, what with his message of peace and togetherness, I'm sure he rots in the pits of hell!

1) That doesn't even make sense... your comparing something from the 16th-18th centuries to 20th century USSR. Ofcourse the United States has done awful shit in its past. But to say that 20th century USSR is the same as US is like me saying Hitler is the same as Churchill (which you probably think anyways)

Comparing Hitler to Churchill is incorrect because Churchill did not persue an open ended policy of genocide. Comparing the American genocide against blacks and indians to the Russian genocide against dissidents and minorities is perfectly logical. The U.S. has participated in more aggressive wars, commited more campaigns of genocide, and most importantly they're still around trying to own the world today. Therefore the USSR pales in comparison. I'm not saying the USSR was good. Like Guevara and Castro I am against both capitalist imperialism and communist imperialism.

2 But most affluent people are bloody government supporters! If you have a fuck ton of money you don't want change because you have what you want. It's the poor who are in favor of change. Who cares what the affluent know? At some turning point in history some fuck face recognized that knowledge tends to democratize cultures, societies, so the only thing to do was confine it to priests clerics and elites, the rest resigned to serve, cuz if the rabble heard the truth, they'd organize against, power priveledge wealth, of you and noone else, did it occur to you it's exactly the same today?*

*Thanks to Propagandhi for those lyrics.

3 My argument was that the US may have ordered Hussein to go to war with Iran, and you can see why. Iran was Soviet backed and had gone against us. Therefore we wanted someone to attack them. We couldnt do it because the Soviet Union would get pissed , so we waged a war by proxy. Whether it was ordered or not is immaterial. So you're saying that interfering economicly and militarily to further a nation's goals is not imperialism? What do you think the Iraqis did with our guns and torture tecniques? Bloody likely that they killed people. And we paid for it. Those people would not have died without our aid. How do you not call that a war? And if this war was not waged in defense, it is imperialism!

4: Nixon should have been hung, and I'm bloody glad Reagan turned into a drooling imbecile before his death, he deserved worse. Nixon's cointel pro spied on Americans and his operations against the BPP killed hundreds of American civilians. Thousands are still imprisoned. This was deliberate targeting. Reagan, as governor of California, ordered troops in against demonstrators and is thus responsible for deaths that occured at Berkely, once again civilians.

You claim that the wars these monsters instituted were not genocide? Bullshit. If you have a war and you use massively mechanized armies against poor folks who can barely scratch together a few kalashnikovs, and you're napalming jungles and villages and spraying chemicals on the ground and into peoples drinking water, YOU ARE A MURDERER AND A PIG. Nixon knew he was going to kill 2 million people. He was a bloodthirsty pig and he should have hung for it. He killed American citizens, he killed Vietnamese freedom fighters, he killed HIS OWN ALLIE, NGO DIN DIEM, and he killed Vietnamese civilians. He went to a completely unecesary war as an act of imperialist aggression, therefore all the blood of Vietnam is on his hands and it is sad that he died before he could pay the price.

Reagan too waged ruthless war against civilians in Chile, Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador. Tens of thousands died and democratic governments were overthrown. None of these wars were necessary and they were all acts of needless, mindless, cruel, inhuman and sickening capitalist imperialism. I consider it great justice that Reagan was struck down with Alzheimers and I was priviledged to be in DC on the day when his evil was vanquished from this world so that I could say so. He died while I was protesting the same kind imperialist war he lived to profit from.

5: I have no love for Pol Pot, he was in no way a true communist. However instead of stopping him we went to war with Le Duan and Ho Chi Minh, who were heroes. Vietnam is now doing well enough, far better than North Korea or Cambodia, and they're even becoming friendly with the U.S. However there is a difference. Vietnam is the equal of the U.S. now. If they had lost their war for independence they would be a slave.

6: So we care when sovereign nations are invaded eh? Like when the Zionist Entity invaded the sinai peninsula, the golan heights, the west bank, Lebanon and the Chebaa farms? Yeah, we cared so much we paid for all the bullets they used. The goal of the united states in the middle east is not to prevent a major power, it is to BE the major power. To rule over Arabs through the tyranny of the Zionist Entity and our own military might. I am thankful that this goal has not been, and hopeful that it never will be, realized.

7; Turkey is indeed a democracy, but they still have a very long way to go before they respect human rights. The Zionist Entity is as well. However you're just being ignorant if you think that alliance with the US is a prerequisite to democracy, that's just capitalist propaganda. So, 2 democracies in the mid east are U.S. allies, compared with the number of dictatorships in the middle east that are U.S. Allies: Pakistan, Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt. So it still seems like the highest rate of democracy is in countries opposed to imperialism. Fifty percent of them are democracies, compared with only twenty percent of the appostate governments.

Now as for the Zionist Entity, they're not a democracy in the proper sense. Most people from Palestine are Arabs. Most people who should be living on the ground occupied by the Zionist Entity are also Arabs. However they were driven out in an act of genocide by the Zionist government. If the Zionist Entity were democratic it would be a part of Palestine ruled by Palestinians. A government that tortures its own citizens (Jews and Arabs alike), hordes weapons of mass destruction, and commits genocide is not a democracy, it's a fascist state.

[Renegade]

Otal- Thank ye.

Lecter- I have one quibble: The proper death for fascists is hanging from a lamp post.

Ham Salad- Yeah! Damn that evil John Lennon, what with his message of peace and togetherness, I'm sure he rots in the pits of hell!
Comparing Hitler to Churchill is incorrect because Churchill did not persue an open ended policy of genocide. Comparing the American genocide against blacks and indians to the Russian genocide against dissidents and minorities is perfectly logical.  The U.S. has participated in more aggressive wars, commited more campaigns of genocide, and most importantly they're still around trying to own the world today. Therefore the USSR pales in comparison. I'm not saying the USSR was good. Like Guevara and Castro I am against both capitalist imperialism and communist imperialism.

2 But most affluent people are bloody government supporters! If you have a fuck ton of money you don't want change because you have what you want. It's the poor who are in favor of change. Who cares what the affluent know? At some turning point in history some fuck face recognized that knowledge tends to democratize cultures, societies, so the only thing to do was confine it to priests clerics and elites,  the rest resigned to serve, cuz if the rabble heard the truth, they'd organize against, power priveledge wealth, of you and noone else, did it occur to you it's exactly the same today?*

*Thanks to Propagandhi for those lyrics.

3 My argument was that the US may have ordered Hussein to go to war with Iran, and you can see why. Iran was Soviet backed and had gone against us. Therefore we wanted someone to attack them. We couldnt do it because the Soviet Union would get pissed , so we waged a war by proxy. Whether it was ordered or not is immaterial. So you're saying that interfering economicly and militarily to further a nation's goals is not imperialism? What do you think the Iraqis did with our guns and torture tecniques? Bloody likely that they killed people. And we paid for it. Those people would not have died without our aid. How do you not call that a war? And if this war was not waged in defense, it is imperialism!

4: Nixon should have been hung, and I'm bloody glad Reagan turned into a drooling imbecile before his death, he deserved worse. Nixon's cointel pro spied on Americans and his operations against the BPP killed hundreds of American civilians. Thousands are still imprisoned. This was deliberate targeting. Reagan, as governor of California, ordered troops in against demonstrators and is thus responsible for deaths that occured at Berkely, once again civilians.

You claim that the wars these monsters instituted were not genocide? Bullshit. If you have a war and you use massively mechanized armies against poor folks who can barely scratch together a few kalashnikovs, and you're napalming jungles and villages and spraying chemicals on the ground and into peoples drinking water, YOU ARE A MURDERER AND A PIG. Nixon knew he was going to kill 2 million people. He was a bloodthirsty pig and he should have hung for it. He killed American citizens, he killed Vietnamese freedom fighters, he killed HIS OWN ALLIE, NGO DIN DIEM, and he killed Vietnamese civilians. He went to a completely unecesary war as an act of imperialist aggression, therefore all the blood of Vietnam is on his hands and it is sad that he died before he could pay the price.

Reagan too waged ruthless war against civilians in Chile, Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador. Tens of thousands died and democratic governments were overthrown. None of these wars were necessary and they were all acts of needless, mindless, cruel, inhuman and sickening capitalist imperialism. I consider it great justice that Reagan was struck down with Alzheimers and I was priviledged to be in DC on the day when his evil was vanquished from this world so that I could say so. He died while I was protesting the same kind imperialist war he lived to profit from.

5: I have no love for Pol Pot, he was in no way a true communist. However instead of stopping him we went to war with Le Duan and Ho Chi Minh, who were heroes. Vietnam is now doing well enough, far better than North Korea or Cambodia, and they're even becoming friendly with the U.S. However there is a difference. Vietnam is the equal of the U.S. now. If they had lost their war for independence they would be a slave.

6: So we care when sovereign nations are invaded eh? Like when the Zionist Entity invaded the sinai peninsula, the golan heights, the west bank, Lebanon and the Chebaa farms? Yeah, we cared so much we paid for all the bullets they used. The goal of the united states in the middle east is not to prevent a major power, it is to BE the major power. To rule over Arabs through the tyranny of the Zionist Entity and our own military might. I am thankful that this goal has not been, and hopeful that it never will be, realized.

7; Turkey is indeed a democracy, but they still have a very long way to go before they respect human rights. The Zionist Entity is as well. However you're just being ignorant if you think that alliance with the US is a prerequisite to democracy, that's just capitalist propaganda. So, 2 democracies in the mid east are U.S. allies, compared with the number of dictatorships in the middle east that are U.S. Allies: Pakistan, Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt. So it still seems like the highest rate of democracy is in countries opposed to imperialism. Fifty percent of them are democracies, compared with only twenty percent of the appostate governments.

Now as for the Zionist Entity, they're not a democracy in the proper sense. Most people from Palestine are Arabs. Most people who should be living on the ground occupied by the Zionist Entity are also Arabs. However they were driven out in an act of genocide by the Zionist government. If the Zionist Entity were democratic it would be a part of Palestine ruled by Palestinians. A government that tortures its own citizens (Jews and Arabs alike), hordes weapons of mass destruction, and commits genocide is not a democracy, it's a fascist state.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) I don't get why you don't read my posts? Basically under your argument, the USA will never be a good country because of what they did in the 1500-1800s. EVER. Basically your saying the USSR is better than England cause England in the 13th century was doin crusades so OH YA there both equally bad. You can't compare countries skipping hundreds of years. The bottom line is the 20th century United States was a vastly superior country in morals than the USSR. And Castro is not against communist imperialism, he just isn't capable of forming an empire like the USSR could. Btw, the biggest case and point evidence of how the US is better than the USSR is when WWII was ending, Germans were trying there hardest to surrender to the US cause they knew if the USSR seized them they'd virtually be slaughtered without impunity. And low in behold that happened once USSR captured Berlin and butchered civilians/POWs as it went through.

2) I just don't know what your talking about anymore. Iran Contra is not a secret. It's taught in school, its public knowledge and a lot of people knowa bout it. You originally made it out to seem like it was some govt conspiracy that nobody knows about.

3) But they didn't order them to go to war. IT didn't happen. We didn't want Iraq invading Iran period.

4) I don't think you read much history no offense. I love how you blame Nixon for Vietnam and how he is the only one to blame when he never even got us INTO the war to begin with. Common misnomer amongst liberals is that Nixon started Vietnam when in fact, he inherited the war. And its really funny how you call the Vietnamese "freedom fighters" when they themselves invaded S. Vietnam themselves which in turn brought us into the war. It's quiet hellarious. How can you be a freedom fighter when you yourself have invaded someone else?

As for collateral dmg in war, ofcourse its awful but it happens in every war. Under your argument FDR should of been hanged along with Churchill for bombing German cities. I'm not sayin its good, but its not comparable to the deliberate slaughter and starvation like the gulags.

5) What...? The are equal to the US? And they would be our "slaves"? You mean kinda like how S. Korea and Taiwan are our "slaves"? Oh wait no there not, there flourishing and in S. Korea's case, is perfectly free (Taiwan would be too if it wasn't for your friends down in China). BTW, for someone against communist imperialism, I like how you like Ho Chi Minh, the virtual poster child of mixing Communism with Nationalism.

6) No its not you fool lol. This is also one of the biggest misnomers about the United States. We actually do not want to be an "imperial power". The reason is cause we know it is impossible to occupy/control foreign entities. Rather we prefer govt's that are capatalistic/democratic (not necessary in all cases though) and pro US. And what i was saying is, the first gulf war was justified even if you don't agree with WHY the US did go, in the end of the day, Saddam invaded another soverign nation.

7) 50% of the countries in the Mid East are not democratic...

And I like how you cleverly avoided answering to the point about lebanon/syria but anyway. I don't have a definite stand on the Palestine/Israel situation because I 1) don't know nuff about its past and 2) don't think either is particularly smart on the matter.

This post has been edited by Renegade: 04 July 2005 - 03:24 AM

[Laughlyn]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rhubard, you are without doubt one of the best elements active in the debate club.