@FORMETOKNOWONLY Lol, he's the same idiot who made fun of and discouraged people for voting for Tom McClintock instead of Arnold in the California recall election, when it turned out that Tom ended up getting more of the vote than Bustamante in the election anyway. This idiot would support a communist if he thought it would win the republican party seats. He's a complete and total fraud.
Remember, all we knew about Arnold, the most practical pick of the time, was that he was a Milton Friedman fan. Ronald Reagan was a Republican with a very dubious past that turned out alright, he could have been worse than Arnold, and Arnold could have been better than Reagan. Even very smart people like Hugh get it very wrong sometimes. Easy to say in hindsight that Arnold has been an abominable governor. Difference is Hugh puts his opinions out for the public, you and I do not.
and you're comparing invading a country to owning a slave? ok, yeah, right, sure, whatever. i don't know of many people in the world (besides yourself) who thinks its ok to take over a country for no good reason. anyone with an iq over 50 knows it was NOT done in self defence etc but just to grab stragegic land and have easier access to oil. period. and you're defending it.
so i say with no hesitation i hope you'll get to taste your own medicine one day, since you like it so much.
When a person presumes another as coming from a bad place, having bad motives, than they perceive near any action by that person as being suspect; even if seemingly good. The mistrusted person literally cannot win, even if they've acted utterly honorably and with goodness resulting. This said, of course when the mistrusted acts with anything less than perfection, their imperfection is magnified. As it is in such a relationship, it is w/ you & the USA.
take another look to see what the 'collateral damage' has been of the iraqi occupation. if i walk into the house down the street with a 'good intention' the owner is going to either call the police or do stg to get me out because i'm an intruder, and my act is illegal.
"if i walk into the house down the street with a 'good intention' the owner is going to either call the police ..."
Now hold on, here is where we differ again. If you walk into a house where a group of men are raping an innocent woman, than I would hope you have a gun and are a decent, courageous enough person to fight and stop the evil being done.
You see, you seem to consider America as morally equivalent as Syria, or Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc. This is nonsensical.
Bingo. Between Gerard Baker's world-famous column about the Obamessiah and Hugh Hewitt's support for John McCain's "dogged determination", the 2008 American presidential election has been as unpredictable as it has beeen surprising. In the end, however, it will be fun to watch, right up to its conclusion.
Fun? How bout incredibly scary! The thought of having McCain and Palin in office is an outright fright! Palin thinks we should "surge" in Afghanistan? Surge? With what? Phil Gramm as Treasury secretary? Just beautiful!
To believe what you've written suggests that we shouldn't have fought Hitler, or any of the other good fights of the past (whatever you think of the mid-east now) You need to be fair when you make accusations, else the truth that does need to be heard in what you say gets lost.
I mentioned fighting Hitler because it is a near universal example of when it is a moral good to go to war.
What this means is that it can be evil to sit back and let evil flourish.
Here's an example. If you see a child being beaten and raped and you do nothing to stop the attacker, since being a pacifist, does this make you a good man, or a coward?
remember, people get the government they deserve. do you really want to support a party that relies on war and fear to beat down the american public into thinking that only it can govern. remember, mccain did say he was concerned about the iraq/pakistan border. say wha?
exactly, what war? there is no 'war'. we go and occupy a country, the locals (yes, neighboring countries are much more local than we are over there) fight the illegal occupation, and we call this a 'war on terrorism'. the american (white evangelicals) are so stupid its scary.
Have been hiding under a rock for the last (at least) 15 years? Since when (in human history) does an occupying force not only kick out the oppressor, but immediately give the land back to it's people and than help them rebuild. The "locals" you mentioned who are fighting are involved with the Islamic fascism, and you can know this by the fact that they most often blow up MORE Iraqis than US soldiers, and use woman and children to do so. Look up the word evil please. (sorry 4 sarcasm)
and what swamp have you been living in for the last 15 years? obviously you've bought the crap that we're there for a greater good.. we're there for a natural-resource-grab-put-bases-in-a-new-country reason. oh, and i see how you causally forget to mention how many civilians the u.s. army has killed. of course all hell will break loose when a foreign army occupies, duhhhh.
UR still not making sense. I mean, you are talking about a country that was enslaved by a mad dictator. He committed genocide against his own people for goodness sakes! Why do you think in over three elections now, the people of Iraq *risked their lives* to go out and vote? Remember the purple fingers, and the proud smiles? Do you really believe that is all conspiracy? You write as if we invaded Holland. Also Bush stopped over 30US attacks since 911. Enough said, but where's the thanks?
redneck ite: saddam was a threat to no one and EVERYONE admits that now. a mistake is a mistake and should be treated as one. oh, and if saddam was so bad why did the u.s. support him for so long? spare me your 'america-is-always-right attitude. you credit bush with stopping 30 attacks? then go ahead and credit him with creating millions more 'terrorists' (as you call them). people like you are the greatest enemy of america. you serve israel's interests exclusively.
umm, what about the hoards of his own people he was murdering? Also he DID have WMD projects going. Just none finished like all the world's intel thought.
Also re "why did the US support
Saddam at one time?" To prevent Iran from winning their war with Iraq, thus destabalising the entire mid-east and becoming a threat to our US National security. Doesn't everyone know that? p.s. We *really* need to ween ourselves off dependence on their oil dagnabit.
you must be in the 1% of people who think saddam was a threat to anyone. he was totally under control, under sanctions etc. U.S. national security? what kind of crap is that? the u.s. military's budget is larger than the rest of the world's COMBINED. that isn't security, that's hegemony.
oh, and iraq attacked iran, not the other way around. and yes, the u.s. supported him and didn't care what he did to his own people. so, 20 years later we care all of a sudden?
You're still not getting it. Saddam "completely under control". How would we have known? He was under sanctions for over 12 years after raping Kuwait, (and these shameful UN sanctions killed countless thousands of children as he spent on himself).
'National security'. If Iran had taken Iraq back than, they would have been in a strategic position to conquer the whole region. If oil was cut off completely, suddenly, it would have wrecked the US economy. This is an issue of security.
"the u.s. military's budget is larger than the rest of the world's COMBINED"
Than why do we keep giving the countries we conquer back to their people? (think Germany & Japan or S. Korea) When in human history has this been done before? (We also help rebuild) Could it be that the US actually has, in general, more decent motives than you assume? No? Why not? Why can't you see such clear evidence of history? (My points are not a matter of opinion) Have you been watching too much CNN?
umm, let's see, ww2 ended in 1945. its 2008. you figure it out. why don't you go tell the vietanmese villagers about how good u.s. motives were (carpetbombing). let someone do that to your neighborhood and take comfort in their good motives.
clear evidence is american imperialism, putting up bases ANYWHERE it can in the world, displacing natives of diego garcia, right on down he line.
but you obviously still buy the propaganda line cos it makes you feel good/superior, when ur just a redneck
I guess I'll ignore your name-calling. (question: why so those on the left often resort to calling names; or more often?) Anyway, because of people like you, or those on the left, we left Vietnam too early and over 1.5 MILLION people were either murdered or starved by the communists. This nightmare was a direct result of us leaving and them essentially winning the war. You talk about evil motives, and yet seem to hold no animosity for the Mao's or Stalin's, etc. of the world? strange.
If you look at N. & S. Korea from space, at night, the South is lit up like an xmas tree, and the North is near totally dark. Do you know why this is? Do care about the millions of people that exist in that hellish region? Do you care about the millions of people that live decent lives in South Korea partly because of the USA? No? Yes? If so, than you must be anti-communist because you care for others. History is on my side. Your name calling & emotives are useless against truth & love.
Did you think that the lights are off in the north because of years of u.s.-led sanctions and and u.s. insisted exclusion from the rest of the world?
why don't you look at the most recent world poll (yes, that includes our allies) to see who is perceived as the biggest threat to world peace: the united states.
"Did you think that the lights are off in the north because of years of u.s.-led sanctions and and u.s. insisted exclusion from the rest of the world?"
Are you serious? And what would you suggest we do with a government that starves, tortures, kills and generally, utterly oppresses its own people? Do you really think that if they will do this to their own kind, that they would not hurt others from other countries? Do you believe they at least would have liked back the south?
"why don't you look at the most recent world poll (yes, that includes our allies) to see who is perceived as the biggest threat to world peace: the united states."
World opinion (ie. the left in this world) is wrong. There unfortunately are wolves waiting at the door. If the US were destroyed tomorrow, these wolves would love to dine on Europe, Australia, etc. the next day. If you argue that there really aren't wolves like this in life, you are denying history and current reality.
uh, no, sorry genius. I obviously meant the left in the world. I am living in oz now, half a world away, and those on the left vocally express their hate for America, and those on the right do not. It is quite simple really. When you said the whole world thinks of the US as a threat to world peace, I thought of all those in the world who do not think this way. ie. those on the right who are part of the world but disagree with you. understand yet?
how idiotic can you be? 'left people' in the world were not polled, but rather 'people' of the world.. so, yes, i'm right. the u.s. is seen as the biggest threat to peace. iraq, placing missles in east. europe, bases all over the place, placing dictators willing to obey u.s. commands.. its all there.
You still don't get it. Did you know that an average of 96% of staff, including editors, reporters, etc. of most major media outlets (think BBC, NYT, CNN) vote politically left? These are the same people who shape opinion of what the "people of the world" think. Yet when there is an actual election (at least in the US) near 50% of people vote right. (compared to 96% in most major media outlets). Anyway, you are right. There are more lefties in socialist countries. What is your point?
no, you don't get it. did you think that most of the staff of bbc,nyt,cnn are more often exposed to the world so that is why they know that 'left' is the fair way? near 50% of the people vote right, whitetrash like yourself, because they are uneducated and know nothing of the world and still think the dollar is king. (far far from the truth).
Sorry, wrong again. Most journalists become liberal in University, and so vote left before they ever get to work at the NYT & get exposed to the world (re your theory). Ironically this same disparity of left & right exists just as much in the University w/ professors. One of least exposed group of people to the world there is. The academic often never leaves campus, and in some ways never has to grow up. Also please stop calling me names.
There you go getting personal again. Is this a lefty trait or something else? It is very unnapealling, indeed. I suppose it could be your upbringing and I should cut you some slack? I don't know.
Anyway, if you are unfamiliar with the facts around kids becoming indoctrinated by a left wing world-view whilst in collage, and especially in journalism and liberal arts schools, than I am surprised. I guess I had doubted you'd really care to hear these thoughts anyway; however contextual.
its just difficult to listen to such redneck right wing holier-than-thou views. people like you 'spreading democracy' with guns and bibles are the most dangerous of all.
I'm really not sure what you actually mean by your demeaning labels. (If I don't have the same presumptions of what they mean, all I am able to really, substantively discern is that they are insulting.)
To have a coherent conversation about these issues with someone who holds differing views, one has to acknowledge there are certain universally accepted constructs to reason itself; ie. common sense. Insults and labeling can only go so far if one is seeking clarity and truth.
Using emotionalism to dispute accepted facts and/or common sense (ie. you feel that what I've shared ought not to be true, even though it is.) is weak, and potentially just destructive. Ideally we should appreciate and learn from history so as not to repeat it.
"your arguments seem to be as strong as a paper tiger."
I love that paper tiger phrase; it is very effective. I just don't know which arguments you are referring to though? I have written you many good, strong thoughts which you have ignored, and also some which are likely quite weak, or like a paper tiger. I don't know what is best in Iraq and never have. I do know that it is horrible for people to suffer, and especially unjustly. Iraq has been through hell b4 & after we've been there.
no, your arguments were very poor. which part of ILLEGAL occupation don't you get? now that whole area will dislike america for decades to come because it always intervenes in others' affairs.
What are you talking about? Who made this law to deem the liberation illegal? Who is the authority? The UN? I've shared already why I think they are not only inherently vapid in substance, but shameful in behaviour to the point of being a complete write-off. Who says ousting Saddam was illegal? He broke all 12 of the conditions of his surrender in 92. This is fact. Germany, France & Russia had a monetary/selfish interest against it.
so, if america calls it 'liberation' then its liberation? what if 99% of the other countries call it occupation (and most of the american population at that)? if you're so much for a democracy, majority view wins. its an occupation.
so, since israel has the most UN violations, should we go oust their leadership?
selfsih interests? what can be more selfish than heavy handedness and oil grabbing?
Occupy? You don't seem to know the definition of the word, irregardless of how many people misuse it. Are we 'occupying' California? I think we are, as much as Israel is an occupier. An 'occupation' doesn't help the people of the country they're in try to get back on their feet after a bloody dictator ruled them for decades. It doesn't encourage elections and its own government, it discourages them. It also takes of the spoils, but US was outbid for Iraq's oil by Russia & others.
You seem so stuck on this word, occupy; as if it automatically presupposes purely evil intent. This is nonsense. There are many motivations involved w/ us being there. Oil is certainly one of them. (In case you haven't considered it BTW, the US territory holds at least as much oil as the mid-east, we just haven't tapped it)
"do not compare japan to iraq, iraq never touched america"
Than how's about Germany? Do you believe we shouldn't have tried to stop Hitler even though he never attacked America? Anyway, that's irrelevant. Iraq is part of our National interest because of our economic dependency in that region. Also you are wrong about oil in the US. That is a common fallacy that we don't have much oil. You, actually, are wrong, not me.
& The US "occupying" Iraq is a morally good thing. That is the point.
and who are their choices to vote for..??? u.s. installed puppet #1 and #2.
you're wrong again.
what does hitler have to do with any of this? if anything, they should be comparing bush to hitler. germany never attacked the u.s.? THEY declared war on the u.s.
once again, you're wrong.
you're making this way too easy for me.
i hope china comes occupies your country, since you're so much for occupation. i'm sure they will have good intentions...
"and who are their choices to vote for..??? u.s. installed puppet #1 and #2."
So you are saying Iraqi's risked their lives to vote for a puppet. This means that either they were ignorant or wanted a US puppet. I think you would choose ignorant, which means you know more than they did. Why is this?
Also, and most importantly, can you prove your knowledge?
BTW, if leadership in Iraq is really US, why didn't we get first dibs on their oil once they started producing again? hmmm? :)
People don't risk their lives to vote unless they believe it is meaningful, ie. a good thing. Think, purple fingers.
Reminder #2:
When you keep stressing the word 'occupied', you are implying something that is clearly not true as by this evidence alone. You are implying a malevolent, oppressive force.
Occupiers, in the evil sense which you mean, do not fight and risk their own lives to give a people a right to vote (and this is the crux) and thus rule themselves.
nowhere did i say occupy and oppress in the same sentence. and which part of ILLEGAL occupation do you not understand? i can't just walk into someone's house and say i'm doing it for their good. especially not when the largest demonstrations EVER were held worldwide against u.s. occupation.
fight to give people the right to vote? you think we're spending all that money..billions, out of good will to give people the right to vote? you're a fucking puppet.
You must know what I meant re oppression? Of course you didn't have to actually use the word 'oppress' to imply a negative when you used the word 'occupy' to share your disapproval.
Anyway, your analogy re 'walking in to a house' is emotionally effective, yet nonsensical once considered in context. As I've written, Saddam had broken all 12 of the conditions of his surrender in 92; from a war he started. Your point is dull.
The UN is criminal by any decent moral standard; therefor their condemnations mean next to nothing.
The US should have all Iraq's treasure if your premise of imperialistic motives were just; yet we did *not* get first dibs in the bid for Iraq's oil once they got it going again. The irony is too much for you to take I can imagine, because the reality of it contradicts near every one of your presumptive, horrific assumptions about my country. You, and "the world", are alone.
haha... so their condemnations mean nothing, but yours do.
hahah...the 'world' is alone? then why do 87% not support mccain? they know he is for the same occupational policies. if you wanna put it that way, that the world is 'alone'.
with statements like that, now i better understand why 87% of the world dislikes your kind. i'll gladly be 'alone' with the vast majority of the world and normal people.
i hope some foreign army comes into your neighborhood so you get a taste of your own medicine
Yes, I know you wish I were murdered. I fully accept that is where you are coming from, and why I haven't taken near anything you've written seriously. You have a very 'mean spirit', as you've shared from the beginning. This is why you are alone.
Wrong again, I simply respond to what you offer, whether in spirit or fact, you will always lose. How can you fight against truth, except by emoting? I was just pointing out that you've revealed a particularly mean spirit amidst all your emoting. You may be alone, but you can't hide.
"pointing out your ridiculous lies and false pretenses, doesn't make them mean."
Not only have you failed to point out *any* lapses in logic, you have failed to recognize I was referring to your tone and spirit. I simply tired of not naming it and gave you a gift. I suggest you pay attention. Very unpleasant, indeed.
i'm not concerned how you personally interpret my 'tone and spirit'.. how abstract and besides the point. my points have been real, and the american public is finally getting it as mcSame is falling behind more and more everday. even indiana today is blue. you're 'alone' even more so today...
You are alone when you stand up for an organization who let genocide happen in Rwanda. You are on your own when you care so little about fellow human beings. When you continue to let millions die from Malaria because you refuse to admit you were wrong about DDT. You are alone. You are on your own when you dismiss the hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, murdered in the pre GW years as irrelevant because they weren't American. Pathetic.
let's see today's polls... ah yes, 85% world opinion against mccain and 55% of u.s. public (not including a massive number of youth who only use cell phones and are anti-mccain).. are also against mccain and the iraq war (occupation).
that would make you alone haha virtually everyone i know, well and casually, agree with me.
the elections in a few days will speak for themselves, and we'll see who's alone.
Why do you keep quoting poll stats to me nobody but you seem to have seen? Anyway, what does being alone or not have to do with party affiliation? Isn't truth and love bigger than that? Why don't you seem to care about your fellow human beings, irregardless of party affiliation or Nationality? I don't understand.
feel free to google them, so you can see for yourself just how alone you are. but its hard to speak rationally to someone who's delusional.
i care about my fellow human beings, and will stop war mongering idiots like yourself who support occupations from killing human beings. you are the enemy of humanity, supporting such policies.
You're starting to sound a bit fanatical, kmardes. Your name calling in context of my being "war mongering" amuses me. I hate war, clearly far more than you do. It was people like you who got 1.5 million people killed in Vietnam after the US left. It is your world view that allowed Mao to be adored as he caused the deaths of over 50 million people. It is your, lonely, ideas that gave rise to Stalin and more countless mass graves. Who is the monster this past 100 years? Is it you?
there you go babbling again, running off into some far off tangent. you support the occupation of iraq, and FAR more people have died during u.s. occupation than at any other time. (not incl. iran-iraq war). oh, and america easily killed over 1 million vietnamese CITIZENS, totally unnecessarily. you'll have a VERY difficult time winning that argument with anyone (except yourself haha)
your delusions seem to grow with every blog. but thank god your mongering politicians will soon be gone.
Just because you insult doesn't mean the insult is deserved. Nice try ;)
For you to deny the fact that our refusal to give aid to the S Vietnamese after we left caused genocide is horrific as it is pathetic. I suppose you believe leftist Mao didn't kill 50 mill, and leftist Stalin over 20 mill, and than there's leftist Hitler and Lenin and so on. You call me a "war monger" w/out any clarity of the true nightmare history of the past 100 years. Just heartless. & oh yes, delusional.
you obviously seem to be taking factual speaking and truth as insults...that's your problem, deal with it.
vietnam seems to be doing just FINE without u.s. 'assistance' (occuptaion, govt installation)..and they have a flourishing economy. and there you go again babbling about lenin etc, who have nothing to do with the topic. as i said, people like you drop their names to scare people into thinking what you want them to think. sorry, but your smoke screen is blowing away in the wind.
oh, i can't think of a name bad enough to describe your ignorance. but luckily, the majority of the american public agrees with me and is totally against the occupation of iraq.
surely, you'll say that the majority of americans are for staying there??????
"FAR more people have died during u.s. occupation than at any other time. "
So are you mad at the Islamic fundies who are responsible for this war? Are you upset that you can't understand why Communism is evil, even after 100 million persons were murdered between just Mao, Stalin & Lenin? Hitler's policies were utterly left wing as well, although he didn't call it communism. Considering all this had happened, you see why Kennedy thought vietnamese communism was potentially a no risk
what does mao stalin and lenin have to do with ANYTHING today? what are you babbling about? typical whitetrash comparison...just yell about the 'next hitler' every few years to justify america's next war. we're all sick of it and your paranoia. get over it.
"what does mao stalin and lenin have to do with ANYTHING "
I thought you knew we were discussing how left wing ideology (bad ideas, from the left) has made the past 100 years the bloodiest in human history. This isn't paranoia, it is fact. Yet you insist on being ignorant of the fact that if it weren't for the US, it would have and would be an even far worse world than it is.
and where in the world are there movements even remotely similar to those of mao etc? the one MOST similar would be the american one. they're the only ones constantly invading other countries, places bases where ever they can, putting in puppet governments, and overconsuming natural resorces (25-30% with only 4% of the population).
if it weren't for the u.s.? russia did waaaay more to defeat germany than america ever did. i see you're still living in your john wayne fantasy world.
"where in the world are there movements even remotely similar to those of mao etc? the one MOST similar would be the american one."
Mao slaughtered and starved his own people.
"russia did waaaay more to defeat germany than america ever did."
So America didn't save Europe and Australia, etc.?
Have you ever heard of the Russian genocidal murderer named Stalin? Are you praising him for his role re Hitler? Do you see no difference between good and evil?
america helped to defeat germany, but russia did the bulk of the work.
you brought up stalin etc as if there is some constant cosmic evil force and america is this good entity which deals with this. stop dreaming and romanticizing.
tbe u.s. has military in over 100 countries. what part of 'empire' don't you get? this is not a coincidence and it is NOT done for some 'greater good'. its business to open foreign markets to u.s. corporations.
your holier-than-thou b.s. is just that, smoke screen
"tbe u.s. has military in over 100 countries. what part of 'empire' don't you get?"
What part of the word 'empire' do you not grasp? Since when does an empire not acknowledge it's own territory? You are saying that Japan and Germany are secretly ruled by the US via corporations? And you say that I'm romanticizing? Even if there is any truth to this, since when does a successful buiss. in Germany not benefit the people working there? & so what if they make a better shampoo; who cares!?!
it doesn't have to be 'empire' in the classical sense like roman times.. as i see you twist words to try to save face for your weak and feeble arguments.
yes, its empire building in a modern way. expanse. control. leverage. just look at the monroe doctrine and manifest destiny... i see you gladly forget to address those. america's 'god given' right to control nor/south america etc etc.. its just done in a less obvious and blunt way, but it is still control and govts are blackmailed.you're wrong
"it doesn't have to be 'empire' in the classical sense like roman times.. as i see you twist words"
How is asking the question, when in history has an empire not even declared its territory, much less had a major part in that countries politics, resources and culture? never. Your model of an empire doesn't exist. If you contend that US corporations are taking advantage somehow, than work to elect a legislator to combat the injustice. Most poor countries have corrupt, oppressive govs.
my model of an empire does exist. and many people even openly talk about the 'end of the american empire'.. i here it everywhere. the u.s. govt isn't much better than these 'small govts'. the last quarter century has practically been a hiearchy of 2 families! albania has more variation than that.
it isn't as easy as electing this or that legislator. corporations have a stranglehold as do powerful INTEREST lobbies.
"...corporations have a stranglehold as do powerful INTEREST lobbies."
umm, to do what exactly? Every totalitarian regime in history has had an ideological agenda of some kind. Even if it is just near pure slavery and oppression (read N Korea). I really don't think some yubbo getting that extra yacht counts. geesh..
"bottom line, america has NO legal right to do what its doing. period. it is in the wrong."
You keep harping back to that point about legality. Who made this law? It used to be illegal to free one's slave. This doesn't make it wrong to have done so. You still aren't making much of an argument there. The UN (if that's who you are talking about) has Syria on their panel. They are an Amoral group, thus incapable of moral judgment of any weight. History shows a whitewashed tomb.
syria doesn't have bases all over the world and ITS territory is occupied illegally as we speak. once again, you give the u.s. a free pass as the double standard lives strong in your eyes. typical right wing narrowmindedness on your part. keep it up.
The difference between Syria and the US is that the US is good. That is what makes us great, you see. When we stop being good, we cease being great. (That's an quote from I can't remember whom);
How do I know? Syria neglects human rights 4 their own people at a degree which would be intolerable here. Anyway, I think I finally understand our difference. Or why you can't seem to grasp much of the common sense ideas and examples I've offered to you.
you way overgeneralized. just because the u.s. is 'good' doesn't give it the right to plop bases all over the world and invade anyone whenever it wants.
"just because the u.s. is 'good' doesn't give it the right to plop bases all over the world.."
If someone was doing evil, or it was within your power to prevent evil being done next door, it would be your duty as a decent person to try and stop the evil being done. I know I simplify with this, but it is the only way I can make my point. Of course the US has "the right", just as any other person or government would have "the right", in certain contexts, to foster good in replace of evil.
waaaaaay oversimplified. and who gives you the authority to decide what is good and evil? who says things have to exist in this black and white - white is so typical of you right wing redneck religous nuts.
i think you are evil. i think you insult many peoples of the earth with your occupations.
"waaaaaay oversimplified. and who gives you the authority to decide what is good and evil"
There are absolutes that we can all agree on when it comes to good and evil. Like it is not right imprison or hurt a child, rape a woman, abuse someone infirmed, etc. etc. etc. How can you not know this? I don't understand where your thoughts that I am 'evil', or 'holier than thou' come from in this context? It doesn't make any sense!?
" the largest worldwide demonstrations against it ever"
Every one of these protesters have no moral authority in context of a simple fact. They did *not* protest before the US took out Saddam, when Saddam himself was murdering people. Why did they not care about those people? Why do they not care about the millions now enslaved in N Korea? Why didn't 'the world' protest about Sudan, or Rwanda or any other ongoing human tragedy? The world could make a diff., but does not care. hypocrites
"because the protesters knew that the iraq invasion would make a small problem much much bigger with bad consequences. duhhhhh"
I asked why people don't expend energy to fight great evils, like genocide in Rwanda, as they do against Bush.
Anyway & again, if the whole world had stood by ousting Saddam, the war would have been long over by now. Al Qaida or similar would have been discouraged, not encouraged as they were by the division. duh.
why didn't they stop rwanda? because there is no oil there. can't you figure that out? how many times have i told you its about interests? you only hear what you want to hear and believe what you want to believe.
"why didn't they stop rwanda? because there is no oil there. "
I was talking about "the world" when I asked about Rwanda, not just the USA. Are you saying that all your beloved socialist countries that are also allied with us in Iraq just care about oil? Are you saying that countries that are not part of the coalition didn't care about Rwanda for some other reason? Pray tell.
Okay I looked up the Monroe doctrine. Wikipedia tells me it is was a doctrine established in 1823 relating to the idea that of being against pre-emptive war. Is that what you're excited about? What about Korea? Vietnam? The Balkins? Pananma? Kosovo? to name just a few. Were these places that attacked the US? I don't think so. Neither was Iraq in 1992 when it raped Kuwait and was on the brink of throwing the entire mid-east (thus the world) into chaos. I don't see the significance.
i'd like to see a list of 'collateral damage/deaths' caused by the u.s. military since ww2. oh, and let's not forget that the u.s. military alone is the largest polluter on the planet.
no way, the u.s. is the biggest polluter by far. china will eventually pass, but they also have 4 TIMES as many people. duhhhh who is doing the overconsuming here??
spare me the we'd be enslaved speech. in modern times of the info. age no invasion of iraq was necessary, nor justified, nor legal, nor moral.
"no way, the u.s. is the biggest polluter by far."
And how do you know this nugget of knowledge? Is it from China's adherence to statistical accuracy and truth telling in general? LOL :)
P.S.
Also if the liberation of Iraq from the murderous dictator was illegal than the UN should give back the 6 billion they've *accepted* from us every year since our "illegal effort". haha., ya right.
saddam did his murdering in the 80s for the most part. even before the u.s. invaded kurds had their own defacto area of iraq. so, taking him out in 2003 was a lame lame lame excuse... as are all of your excuses.
"Saddam did his murdering in the 80s for the most part. ...taking him out in 2003 was a lame lame lame excuse... as are all of your excuses."
haha, "for the most part" Just don't mention that millions of Iraqi people lived in fear as his sons roved around picking up woman for their rape rooms, or people they didn't like to throw into their giant meat grinder. Also, why was Saddam found to be developing WMD when we went in? What is your lame excuse Mr. fancy pants? :)
U.S. President John F. Kennedy at an August 29, 1962 news conference:
The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today. That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in the Organization of American States and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba."
not only keeping foreign influence (that is open to interpretation) out, but putting u.s. influence to the forefront (i.e., you work for US now).
manifest destiny is even more telling. its god's plan that the u.s. may spread and take control of more land. go westward, and beyond. its our 'right'. we are holier than thou.
"go westward, and beyond. its our 'right'. we are holier than thou."
Maybe its because you were raised in a public school, but you miss the point about the core American value. *All* people are free, and have rights, just because they are alive. This 'doctrine' of having inalienable rights, outside of any objective opinion, no matter how powerful, is unique to America. If the individual is free, than there is no paradigm for conquest as you accuse.
you're so full of it as you twist words to meet your personal agenda and the interpretation which sounds nice to you. the doctrine is to spread american borders and control.
"you're so full of it as you twist words to meet your personal agenda "
Do you mean when wrote that *All* people are free, and have rights, just because they are alive. Okay, so you think I made that up and it is not a core, foundational US value. Can you at least admit that it would be good if it was?
P.S.
That wasn't very nice to say that I'm 'full of it'. But don't worry, I don't take you seriously enough to feel bad from your abuse.
anyone who supports the iraq occupation is full of it. its wrong from every perspective. the country wasn't even a threat to itself in 2003. embargoes were long in place, small unorganized military, etc. And the u.s. saw a ripe fruit for the picking where it could gain a foothold in the strategic region. very simple.
and you're sitting her preeching that we did it to 'help' the iraqis, because we felt like spreading 'goodness'?
yes, its the u.s. who is doing the 'evil'..using fabricated reasons to occupy and expand. very basic. its call Psyops. who do you think you're fooling? in this information age, the whitetrash breed is slowly losing ground. eyes are being opened.
a few more days, and your boys are out of power haha
"a few more days, and your boys are out of power haha"
Like I said, I welcome and am interested to see what you do with all your new found power. Remember, with great power comes great responsibility. It is not about ego, or fun, it is about hard decision. Obama himself will have to make decisions that determine who will live and who will die, as all Presidents before him. I will pray for him and hope for the best, always.
"like i said, 90% of the world agrees with me, not you :) "
Like I said, the world, even 99% of it, means nothing next to truth or what is right. 90% of the world used to accept slavery in society as a normal thing. They were wrong. So are you, about America.
" invading other countries for no reason is 'evil', as you would say."
Of course I would say that invading other another country, or anywhere (BTW why are you so hung up on Nationalism as a lefty?) with just cause cause is evil. Evil is evil. If someone a raping a child in a home, someone should invade the home to stop the evil. If the rapist invades a home to hurt a child than someone should stop them. You think the Bush is the rapist, I don't; I think, or know, that Saddam was.
Also, what is so great about America is that if we are interfering unjustly either domestically or internationally, our innate sense of what is right and good should help us, 'we the people', to move government to stop or do otherwise. I think this has a lot to do with your emotional motivation, and I respect that. Yet what I don't understand is the willingness to attribute such evil in motive to near all history of the US' interfering behavior we've talked about. Seems over the top.
If I am ignorant of something, this means I simply do not know some knowledge that you claim to know. Yet telling someone that they are ignorant of some fact, without choosing to enlighten them at the same time, is by definition an insult. Didn't you *know* that? ;)
I dare you to answer this. Why do you only care about Nationalism when it has to do with preventing the helping of others? You know damn well that if the whole world had stood as one against Saddam, the war as it is would have been long over. You know that if the world stood as one against genocide in Rwanda, we could have stopped it. You know the same about N Korea. We, as a planet, could free them. Yet by your inaction you do not care about those people, and that is what I call evil.
"...avoid the monroe doctrine and manifest destiny questions."
I don't know what you're talking about, but I don't want to google & get into debate because in general, of course there are examples of both sides behaving less then perfectly in probably all areas of importance. Either that or there are many conspiracy type theory's as well on both sides. The fact that it is a theory means it is more productive to talk about what we do know, as well as what values we have and why.
Remember, at its very core America believes that it's people are the greatest resource, and exactly why it is so successful. That is why liberty must be the greatest value, and before equality even.
Tell me why the car, the lightbulb, so much music (jazz, rock, blues) movies, airplane, telephone, PCs, so much medicine, etc. has come out of the US. It is because of this heart for valuing freedom above all. It really is beautiful.
"well, america has also stolen many great scientists..bribe with money etc, like the german..."
I think it is amusing how the left gets so bent out of shape at even the suggestion that people call them unpatriotic. Yet I have never heard a *single* instance of this by any major commentator. They basically made it up. Yet, I think, from this thread, I can see why the left gets so defensive at even the thought. Me thinks thou dost protest too much. haha :)
the right is known for war mongering and heavy handedness and 'spreading democracy' (by the sword).. as you so strongly support.
even you have to admit that the majority of americans are against the war in iraq yet u.s. forces continue to occupy it because its in the interests of corportations and the military industrial complex.
people are catching on. the show is over.
maybe one day there'll be real justice and you'll get a taste of your own medicine.
"the right is known for war mongering and heavy handedness and 'spreading democracy' (by the sword).. as you so strongly support."
Wrong. The left is all about capitalizing on compassion (the worst kind of capitalism) and is generally unwilling to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil. Yet if someone were breaking into their home they would call the police to potentially wage war on the intruder.
Also people don't want to be enslaved, no matter what you say. All are loved
"You brought up stalin etc as if there is some constant cosmic evil force and america is this good entity which deals with this. "
If you look at America's history in this world, what you've just said is actually very close to the truth. Tell me, who else would have (& will) keep the wolves at bay? Russia fought Germany since the Nazis attacked Russia. You didn't mention that, nor will you acknowledge the significance of the difference in motive between us and Russia at the time.
there it is, i knew that is what you thought. of course russia fought germany cos it was attacked, and the u.s. fought germany cos it declared war on the u.s. Make no mistake, the u.s. glaaaadly took the spoils of war. it was not all done for the 'good'. infact, in the 1930s there was MORE than enough cooperation between the u.s. and hitler's germany. its ALL about interests.
i don't mention many things because of the limit of characters. plus, your head is too brainwashed to understand anyways
Yes, of course I agree. Yet my argument is that there are core values which the US has which Russia did not. Values related to our 'inaliable rights'. Because we are alive, we have rights. Not because any rights are granted by those in power who have power over life & death. The default in humanity is to rule with such power; ie. fear of death makes me obey. The US is unique in history, as 'life = rights' is the power over ourselves to self govern. It is good
"there it is, you admit its about interests (economic NOT moral)"
No my point was that sometimes it is impossible to separate the two. For example, if we had let Iraq to win against Iran, or take over Kuwait, they would have been in a position more likely to thrust the whole mid-east into chaos, end our oil supply from there, ruining our economy overnight, thus hurting many citizens (some to death) and thus it was economic and moral to support Iran and Kuwait in that context.
no, its america's problem that they so selfishly consume 30% of the world's natural resources when they have 4% of the population. ever here of DISCREPENCY? POLLUTION? EXTERNALITIES?
Again, I would like you to tell me why 3 major countries that make up a significant part of the UN have no accountability for their decisions in regards Iraq. It came out afterwards that they had selfish reasons for not becoming part of the coalition and propelling UN approval (thus, 'The World's') for ousting Saddam. Imagine if "The World" had all been one in this endevour. Please, try and imagine this.
There was no question that SH was a mass murderer & no leader. Why don't you care?
People like McCain and Hewitt is what is wrong with the Republican party.
True conservatives need to take back the party or start a third one, but it can't survive having RINOS.
FORMETOKNOWONLY 2 years ago
@FORMETOKNOWONLY Lol, he's the same idiot who made fun of and discouraged people for voting for Tom McClintock instead of Arnold in the California recall election, when it turned out that Tom ended up getting more of the vote than Bustamante in the election anyway. This idiot would support a communist if he thought it would win the republican party seats. He's a complete and total fraud.
prooc 1 year ago
@prooc
Remember, all we knew about Arnold, the most practical pick of the time, was that he was a Milton Friedman fan. Ronald Reagan was a Republican with a very dubious past that turned out alright, he could have been worse than Arnold, and Arnold could have been better than Reagan. Even very smart people like Hugh get it very wrong sometimes. Easy to say in hindsight that Arnold has been an abominable governor. Difference is Hugh puts his opinions out for the public, you and I do not.
chukmaty 1 year ago
Sorry, Hugh, you were wrong in backing McCain on Republican principle alone. McCain is a RINO. Republican In Name Only. McCain is a turncoat.
thirty6min 2 years ago
and you're comparing invading a country to owning a slave? ok, yeah, right, sure, whatever. i don't know of many people in the world (besides yourself) who thinks its ok to take over a country for no good reason. anyone with an iq over 50 knows it was NOT done in self defence etc but just to grab stragegic land and have easier access to oil. period. and you're defending it.
so i say with no hesitation i hope you'll get to taste your own medicine one day, since you like it so much.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes
Here's hinting at our difference:
When a person presumes another as coming from a bad place, having bad motives, than they perceive near any action by that person as being suspect; even if seemingly good. The mistrusted person literally cannot win, even if they've acted utterly honorably and with goodness resulting. This said, of course when the mistrusted acts with anything less than perfection, their imperfection is magnified. As it is in such a relationship, it is w/ you & the USA.
itreeye 3 years ago
take another look to see what the 'collateral damage' has been of the iraqi occupation. if i walk into the house down the street with a 'good intention' the owner is going to either call the police or do stg to get me out because i'm an intruder, and my act is illegal.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"if i walk into the house down the street with a 'good intention' the owner is going to either call the police ..."
Now hold on, here is where we differ again. If you walk into a house where a group of men are raping an innocent woman, than I would hope you have a gun and are a decent, courageous enough person to fight and stop the evil being done.
You see, you seem to consider America as morally equivalent as Syria, or Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc. This is nonsensical.
itreeye 3 years ago
it's october 1. for all its feelgood intellectual stylishness, i think we can say that the content of this clip hasn't got much validity now.
baddmanaz 3 years ago
Bingo. Between Gerard Baker's world-famous column about the Obamessiah and Hugh Hewitt's support for John McCain's "dogged determination", the 2008 American presidential election has been as unpredictable as it has beeen surprising. In the end, however, it will be fun to watch, right up to its conclusion.
cangeloc127 3 years ago
Fun? How bout incredibly scary! The thought of having McCain and Palin in office is an outright fright! Palin thinks we should "surge" in Afghanistan? Surge? With what? Phil Gramm as Treasury secretary? Just beautiful!
iamalbright2 3 years ago
young men die for rich old men thats the american way thats the way it will always be and thats that
PARKEREAL 3 years ago
PARKEREAL:
To believe what you've written suggests that we shouldn't have fought Hitler, or any of the other good fights of the past (whatever you think of the mid-east now) You need to be fair when you make accusations, else the truth that does need to be heard in what you say gets lost.
itreeye 3 years ago
the truth is the truth why of all the war,s did you say ww2 with that hitler comment. are you trying to prove something.lol to yourself
PARKEREAL 3 years ago
PARKEREAL:
I mentioned fighting Hitler because it is a near universal example of when it is a moral good to go to war.
What this means is that it can be evil to sit back and let evil flourish.
Here's an example. If you see a child being beaten and raped and you do nothing to stop the attacker, since being a pacifist, does this make you a good man, or a coward?
itreeye 3 years ago
now your going off to child abuse. we are on totally diffrent level,s no disrespect peace
PARKEREAL 3 years ago
PARKEREAL:
I think you do get my analogy and just didn't want to answer the question. I don't blame you, as there is no good answer.
itreeye 3 years ago
if that makes you sleep better i wasnt trying to insult you
PARKEREAL 3 years ago
PARKEREAL:
I never thought you were.
itreeye 3 years ago
remember, people get the government they deserve. do you really want to support a party that relies on war and fear to beat down the american public into thinking that only it can govern. remember, mccain did say he was concerned about the iraq/pakistan border. say wha?
jnycnuk 3 years ago
wait, win what war?
SalamFilms 3 years ago
exactly, what war? there is no 'war'. we go and occupy a country, the locals (yes, neighboring countries are much more local than we are over there) fight the illegal occupation, and we call this a 'war on terrorism'. the american (white evangelicals) are so stupid its scary.
kmardes 3 years ago
I see you and Nero think alike then, haha. Your opinion on this matter is too simplistic.
gobz11 3 years ago
kmardes:
Have been hiding under a rock for the last (at least) 15 years? Since when (in human history) does an occupying force not only kick out the oppressor, but immediately give the land back to it's people and than help them rebuild. The "locals" you mentioned who are fighting are involved with the Islamic fascism, and you can know this by the fact that they most often blow up MORE Iraqis than US soldiers, and use woman and children to do so. Look up the word evil please. (sorry 4 sarcasm)
itreeye 3 years ago
and what swamp have you been living in for the last 15 years? obviously you've bought the crap that we're there for a greater good.. we're there for a natural-resource-grab-put-bases-in-a-new-country reason. oh, and i see how you causally forget to mention how many civilians the u.s. army has killed. of course all hell will break loose when a foreign army occupies, duhhhh.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
UR still not making sense. I mean, you are talking about a country that was enslaved by a mad dictator. He committed genocide against his own people for goodness sakes! Why do you think in over three elections now, the people of Iraq *risked their lives* to go out and vote? Remember the purple fingers, and the proud smiles? Do you really believe that is all conspiracy? You write as if we invaded Holland. Also Bush stopped over 30US attacks since 911. Enough said, but where's the thanks?
itreeye 3 years ago
redneck ite: saddam was a threat to no one and EVERYONE admits that now. a mistake is a mistake and should be treated as one. oh, and if saddam was so bad why did the u.s. support him for so long? spare me your 'america-is-always-right attitude. you credit bush with stopping 30 attacks? then go ahead and credit him with creating millions more 'terrorists' (as you call them). people like you are the greatest enemy of america. you serve israel's interests exclusively.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"saddam was a threat to no one"
umm, what about the hoards of his own people he was murdering? Also he DID have WMD projects going. Just none finished like all the world's intel thought.
Also re "why did the US support
Saddam at one time?" To prevent Iran from winning their war with Iraq, thus destabalising the entire mid-east and becoming a threat to our US National security. Doesn't everyone know that? p.s. We *really* need to ween ourselves off dependence on their oil dagnabit.
itreeye 3 years ago
you must be in the 1% of people who think saddam was a threat to anyone. he was totally under control, under sanctions etc. U.S. national security? what kind of crap is that? the u.s. military's budget is larger than the rest of the world's COMBINED. that isn't security, that's hegemony.
oh, and iraq attacked iran, not the other way around. and yes, the u.s. supported him and didn't care what he did to his own people. so, 20 years later we care all of a sudden?
u watch 2 much fox
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
You're still not getting it. Saddam "completely under control". How would we have known? He was under sanctions for over 12 years after raping Kuwait, (and these shameful UN sanctions killed countless thousands of children as he spent on himself).
'National security'. If Iran had taken Iraq back than, they would have been in a strategic position to conquer the whole region. If oil was cut off completely, suddenly, it would have wrecked the US economy. This is an issue of security.
itreeye 3 years ago
kmardes:
"the u.s. military's budget is larger than the rest of the world's COMBINED"
Than why do we keep giving the countries we conquer back to their people? (think Germany & Japan or S. Korea) When in human history has this been done before? (We also help rebuild) Could it be that the US actually has, in general, more decent motives than you assume? No? Why not? Why can't you see such clear evidence of history? (My points are not a matter of opinion) Have you been watching too much CNN?
itreeye 3 years ago
umm, let's see, ww2 ended in 1945. its 2008. you figure it out. why don't you go tell the vietanmese villagers about how good u.s. motives were (carpetbombing). let someone do that to your neighborhood and take comfort in their good motives.
clear evidence is american imperialism, putting up bases ANYWHERE it can in the world, displacing natives of diego garcia, right on down he line.
but you obviously still buy the propaganda line cos it makes you feel good/superior, when ur just a redneck
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
I guess I'll ignore your name-calling. (question: why so those on the left often resort to calling names; or more often?) Anyway, because of people like you, or those on the left, we left Vietnam too early and over 1.5 MILLION people were either murdered or starved by the communists. This nightmare was a direct result of us leaving and them essentially winning the war. You talk about evil motives, and yet seem to hold no animosity for the Mao's or Stalin's, etc. of the world? strange.
itreeye 3 years ago
kmardes:
If you look at N. & S. Korea from space, at night, the South is lit up like an xmas tree, and the North is near totally dark. Do you know why this is? Do care about the millions of people that exist in that hellish region? Do you care about the millions of people that live decent lives in South Korea partly because of the USA? No? Yes? If so, than you must be anti-communist because you care for others. History is on my side. Your name calling & emotives are useless against truth & love.
itreeye 3 years ago
Did you think that the lights are off in the north because of years of u.s.-led sanctions and and u.s. insisted exclusion from the rest of the world?
why don't you look at the most recent world poll (yes, that includes our allies) to see who is perceived as the biggest threat to world peace: the united states.
period.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"Did you think that the lights are off in the north because of years of u.s.-led sanctions and and u.s. insisted exclusion from the rest of the world?"
Are you serious? And what would you suggest we do with a government that starves, tortures, kills and generally, utterly oppresses its own people? Do you really think that if they will do this to their own kind, that they would not hurt others from other countries? Do you believe they at least would have liked back the south?
itreeye 3 years ago
kmardes:
"why don't you look at the most recent world poll (yes, that includes our allies) to see who is perceived as the biggest threat to world peace: the united states."
World opinion (ie. the left in this world) is wrong. There unfortunately are wolves waiting at the door. If the US were destroyed tomorrow, these wolves would love to dine on Europe, Australia, etc. the next day. If you argue that there really aren't wolves like this in life, you are denying history and current reality.
itreeye 3 years ago
ah, so the whole world is 'left', eh? with holier-than-thou friends like you, who needs enemies?
your comebacks are ridiculously poor and you make wildly deluded assumptions that only someone from fox 'news' would make.
thank god you're in the small minority and that in 2 weeks your kind will be removed from power.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"ah, so the whole world is 'left', eh?"
uh, no, sorry genius. I obviously meant the left in the world. I am living in oz now, half a world away, and those on the left vocally express their hate for America, and those on the right do not. It is quite simple really. When you said the whole world thinks of the US as a threat to world peace, I thought of all those in the world who do not think this way. ie. those on the right who are part of the world but disagree with you. understand yet?
itreeye 3 years ago
how idiotic can you be? 'left people' in the world were not polled, but rather 'people' of the world.. so, yes, i'm right. the u.s. is seen as the biggest threat to peace. iraq, placing missles in east. europe, bases all over the place, placing dictators willing to obey u.s. commands.. its all there.
a spade is a spade.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
You still don't get it. Did you know that an average of 96% of staff, including editors, reporters, etc. of most major media outlets (think BBC, NYT, CNN) vote politically left? These are the same people who shape opinion of what the "people of the world" think. Yet when there is an actual election (at least in the US) near 50% of people vote right. (compared to 96% in most major media outlets). Anyway, you are right. There are more lefties in socialist countries. What is your point?
itreeye 3 years ago
no, you don't get it. did you think that most of the staff of bbc,nyt,cnn are more often exposed to the world so that is why they know that 'left' is the fair way? near 50% of the people vote right, whitetrash like yourself, because they are uneducated and know nothing of the world and still think the dollar is king. (far far from the truth).
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
Sorry, wrong again. Most journalists become liberal in University, and so vote left before they ever get to work at the NYT & get exposed to the world (re your theory). Ironically this same disparity of left & right exists just as much in the University w/ professors. One of least exposed group of people to the world there is. The academic often never leaves campus, and in some ways never has to grow up. Also please stop calling me names.
Again ironically; very whitetrash-ish of you.
itreeye 3 years ago
and how do you come up with this 'fact' about where journalists become liberal? where do you make this garbage up? to suit your own twisted views?
its hard not to see how you aren't whitetrash. a spade is a spade.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
There you go getting personal again. Is this a lefty trait or something else? It is very unnapealling, indeed. I suppose it could be your upbringing and I should cut you some slack? I don't know.
Anyway, if you are unfamiliar with the facts around kids becoming indoctrinated by a left wing world-view whilst in collage, and especially in journalism and liberal arts schools, than I am surprised. I guess I had doubted you'd really care to hear these thoughts anyway; however contextual.
itreeye 3 years ago
its just difficult to listen to such redneck right wing holier-than-thou views. people like you 'spreading democracy' with guns and bibles are the most dangerous of all.
you actually are america's greatest enemy.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
I'm really not sure what you actually mean by your demeaning labels. (If I don't have the same presumptions of what they mean, all I am able to really, substantively discern is that they are insulting.)
To have a coherent conversation about these issues with someone who holds differing views, one has to acknowledge there are certain universally accepted constructs to reason itself; ie. common sense. Insults and labeling can only go so far if one is seeking clarity and truth.
itreeye 3 years ago
you refer to clarity and truth yet you sound like you're from fox 'news' with your rabbit out of the hat statistics.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"...with your rabbit out of the hat statistics"
Using emotionalism to dispute accepted facts and/or common sense (ie. you feel that what I've shared ought not to be true, even though it is.) is weak, and potentially just destructive. Ideally we should appreciate and learn from history so as not to repeat it.
itreeye 3 years ago
you're obviously the emotional one, or more delusional.
if the u.s. is doing so much 'good' in iraq why does the local population (and govt) want the u.s. forces out of iraq????
Cmon, let me hear your delusional fill-in-the-gap answer on this one.
your arguments seem to be as strong as a paper tiger.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"your arguments seem to be as strong as a paper tiger."
I love that paper tiger phrase; it is very effective. I just don't know which arguments you are referring to though? I have written you many good, strong thoughts which you have ignored, and also some which are likely quite weak, or like a paper tiger. I don't know what is best in Iraq and never have. I do know that it is horrible for people to suffer, and especially unjustly. Iraq has been through hell b4 & after we've been there.
itreeye 3 years ago
no, your arguments were very poor. which part of ILLEGAL occupation don't you get? now that whole area will dislike america for decades to come because it always intervenes in others' affairs.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"which part of ILLEGAL occupation don't you get?"
What are you talking about? Who made this law to deem the liberation illegal? Who is the authority? The UN? I've shared already why I think they are not only inherently vapid in substance, but shameful in behaviour to the point of being a complete write-off. Who says ousting Saddam was illegal? He broke all 12 of the conditions of his surrender in 92. This is fact. Germany, France & Russia had a monetary/selfish interest against it.
itreeye 3 years ago
so, if america calls it 'liberation' then its liberation? what if 99% of the other countries call it occupation (and most of the american population at that)? if you're so much for a democracy, majority view wins. its an occupation.
so, since israel has the most UN violations, should we go oust their leadership?
selfsih interests? what can be more selfish than heavy handedness and oil grabbing?
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
Occupy? You don't seem to know the definition of the word, irregardless of how many people misuse it. Are we 'occupying' California? I think we are, as much as Israel is an occupier. An 'occupation' doesn't help the people of the country they're in try to get back on their feet after a bloody dictator ruled them for decades. It doesn't encourage elections and its own government, it discourages them. It also takes of the spoils, but US was outbid for Iraq's oil by Russia & others.
itreeye 3 years ago
you're even more ignorant than you initially let on.
the u.s. is not occupying iraq???? then what is it doing?
you're so brainwashed its pathetic.
its pure american strategic positioning in an area rich in oil. black gold. period.
the second you can't admit that the u.s. is occupying iraq, then i might as well talk to a wall.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
You seem so stuck on this word, occupy; as if it automatically presupposes purely evil intent. This is nonsense. There are many motivations involved w/ us being there. Oil is certainly one of them. (In case you haven't considered it BTW, the US territory holds at least as much oil as the mid-east, we just haven't tapped it)
How long did the US 'Occupy' Japan *after* WW2?
Answer:
From August 14, 1945 to April 28, 1952
Approximately six and a half years.
itreeye 3 years ago
do not compare japan to iraq, iraq never touched america. again, you're wrong.
no, u.s. territories do not hold as much oil as the middle east, not even close.
you're wrong again.
yes, the u.s. is occupying iraq, any way you look at it.
you're wrong, yet again.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"do not compare japan to iraq, iraq never touched america"
Than how's about Germany? Do you believe we shouldn't have tried to stop Hitler even though he never attacked America? Anyway, that's irrelevant. Iraq is part of our National interest because of our economic dependency in that region. Also you are wrong about oil in the US. That is a common fallacy that we don't have much oil. You, actually, are wrong, not me.
& The US "occupying" Iraq is a morally good thing. That is the point.
itreeye 3 years ago
and who are their choices to vote for..??? u.s. installed puppet #1 and #2.
you're wrong again.
what does hitler have to do with any of this? if anything, they should be comparing bush to hitler. germany never attacked the u.s.? THEY declared war on the u.s.
once again, you're wrong.
you're making this way too easy for me.
i hope china comes occupies your country, since you're so much for occupation. i'm sure they will have good intentions...
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"and who are their choices to vote for..??? u.s. installed puppet #1 and #2."
So you are saying Iraqi's risked their lives to vote for a puppet. This means that either they were ignorant or wanted a US puppet. I think you would choose ignorant, which means you know more than they did. Why is this?
Also, and most importantly, can you prove your knowledge?
BTW, if leadership in Iraq is really US, why didn't we get first dibs on their oil once they started producing again? hmmm? :)
itreeye 3 years ago
of course they only voted for a u.s. puppet. do you think the u.s. is going to spend BILLIONS and not put in their own man? how stupid are you??
BTW, the u.s. DID get first dibs on the oil.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
Reminder:
People don't risk their lives to vote unless they believe it is meaningful, ie. a good thing. Think, purple fingers.
Reminder #2:
When you keep stressing the word 'occupied', you are implying something that is clearly not true as by this evidence alone. You are implying a malevolent, oppressive force.
Occupiers, in the evil sense which you mean, do not fight and risk their own lives to give a people a right to vote (and this is the crux) and thus rule themselves.
itreeye 3 years ago
nowhere did i say occupy and oppress in the same sentence. and which part of ILLEGAL occupation do you not understand? i can't just walk into someone's house and say i'm doing it for their good. especially not when the largest demonstrations EVER were held worldwide against u.s. occupation.
fight to give people the right to vote? you think we're spending all that money..billions, out of good will to give people the right to vote? you're a fucking puppet.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
You must know what I meant re oppression? Of course you didn't have to actually use the word 'oppress' to imply a negative when you used the word 'occupy' to share your disapproval.
Anyway, your analogy re 'walking in to a house' is emotionally effective, yet nonsensical once considered in context. As I've written, Saddam had broken all 12 of the conditions of his surrender in 92; from a war he started. Your point is dull.
itreeye 3 years ago
my point is excellent. and why don't we walk into israel's house since they have the MOST UN condemnations.
u.s. forces do not have to be oppressive, their simple presence their is illegal and unwanted. period.
oh, in yesterday's poll, 87% of the world is against mccain.
i wonder why.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
The UN is criminal by any decent moral standard; therefor their condemnations mean next to nothing.
The US should have all Iraq's treasure if your premise of imperialistic motives were just; yet we did *not* get first dibs in the bid for Iraq's oil once they got it going again. The irony is too much for you to take I can imagine, because the reality of it contradicts near every one of your presumptive, horrific assumptions about my country. You, and "the world", are alone.
itreeye 3 years ago
haha... so their condemnations mean nothing, but yours do.
hahah...the 'world' is alone? then why do 87% not support mccain? they know he is for the same occupational policies. if you wanna put it that way, that the world is 'alone'.
hilarious.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
Yup, you got it. Their opinion means nothing. Zilch. Nada.
Oh yes, and alone means just that. You're on your own baby.
itreeye 3 years ago
with statements like that, now i better understand why 87% of the world dislikes your kind. i'll gladly be 'alone' with the vast majority of the world and normal people.
i hope some foreign army comes into your neighborhood so you get a taste of your own medicine
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
Yes, I know you wish I were murdered. I fully accept that is where you are coming from, and why I haven't taken near anything you've written seriously. You have a very 'mean spirit', as you've shared from the beginning. This is why you are alone.
itreeye 3 years ago
i see fox 'news' has taught you how to grossly misquote. you're learned very well from them.
i'm a realist, and i tell it as is it. you're a propagandist and mouthpiece for american hegemony.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
Wrong again, I simply respond to what you offer, whether in spirit or fact, you will always lose. How can you fight against truth, except by emoting? I was just pointing out that you've revealed a particularly mean spirit amidst all your emoting. You may be alone, but you can't hide.
itreeye 3 years ago
you couldn't be farther from the truth.
just because my pointing out your ridiculous lies and false pretenses, doesn't make them mean. once again, 'fox' accusations.
i know, the truth hurts, and it can be interpreted as mean. but i know you'll continue to live in your fantasy world.
another 10 days and you guys lose power. time for u.s. withdrawal from iraq, and other occupied parts of the world.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"pointing out your ridiculous lies and false pretenses, doesn't make them mean."
Not only have you failed to point out *any* lapses in logic, you have failed to recognize I was referring to your tone and spirit. I simply tired of not naming it and gave you a gift. I suggest you pay attention. Very unpleasant, indeed.
itreeye 3 years ago
i'm not concerned how you personally interpret my 'tone and spirit'.. how abstract and besides the point. my points have been real, and the american public is finally getting it as mcSame is falling behind more and more everday. even indiana today is blue. you're 'alone' even more so today...
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
You are alone when you stand up for an organization who let genocide happen in Rwanda. You are on your own when you care so little about fellow human beings. When you continue to let millions die from Malaria because you refuse to admit you were wrong about DDT. You are alone. You are on your own when you dismiss the hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, murdered in the pre GW years as irrelevant because they weren't American. Pathetic.
itreeye 3 years ago
let's see today's polls... ah yes, 85% world opinion against mccain and 55% of u.s. public (not including a massive number of youth who only use cell phones and are anti-mccain).. are also against mccain and the iraq war (occupation).
that would make you alone haha virtually everyone i know, well and casually, agree with me.
the elections in a few days will speak for themselves, and we'll see who's alone.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
Why do you keep quoting poll stats to me nobody but you seem to have seen? Anyway, what does being alone or not have to do with party affiliation? Isn't truth and love bigger than that? Why don't you seem to care about your fellow human beings, irregardless of party affiliation or Nationality? I don't understand.
itreeye 3 years ago
feel free to google them, so you can see for yourself just how alone you are. but its hard to speak rationally to someone who's delusional.
i care about my fellow human beings, and will stop war mongering idiots like yourself who support occupations from killing human beings. you are the enemy of humanity, supporting such policies.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
You're starting to sound a bit fanatical, kmardes. Your name calling in context of my being "war mongering" amuses me. I hate war, clearly far more than you do. It was people like you who got 1.5 million people killed in Vietnam after the US left. It is your world view that allowed Mao to be adored as he caused the deaths of over 50 million people. It is your, lonely, ideas that gave rise to Stalin and more countless mass graves. Who is the monster this past 100 years? Is it you?
itreeye 3 years ago
there you go babbling again, running off into some far off tangent. you support the occupation of iraq, and FAR more people have died during u.s. occupation than at any other time. (not incl. iran-iraq war). oh, and america easily killed over 1 million vietnamese CITIZENS, totally unnecessarily. you'll have a VERY difficult time winning that argument with anyone (except yourself haha)
your delusions seem to grow with every blog. but thank god your mongering politicians will soon be gone.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
Just because you insult doesn't mean the insult is deserved. Nice try ;)
For you to deny the fact that our refusal to give aid to the S Vietnamese after we left caused genocide is horrific as it is pathetic. I suppose you believe leftist Mao didn't kill 50 mill, and leftist Stalin over 20 mill, and than there's leftist Hitler and Lenin and so on. You call me a "war monger" w/out any clarity of the true nightmare history of the past 100 years. Just heartless. & oh yes, delusional.
itreeye 3 years ago
you obviously seem to be taking factual speaking and truth as insults...that's your problem, deal with it.
vietnam seems to be doing just FINE without u.s. 'assistance' (occuptaion, govt installation)..and they have a flourishing economy. and there you go again babbling about lenin etc, who have nothing to do with the topic. as i said, people like you drop their names to scare people into thinking what you want them to think. sorry, but your smoke screen is blowing away in the wind.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"you obviously seem to be taking factual speaking and truth as insults"
Nope, just referring to your name calling. I know it is a typical left wing tendency, but I sure wish you could see how silly it makes you look. :)
itreeye 3 years ago
oh, i can't think of a name bad enough to describe your ignorance. but luckily, the majority of the american public agrees with me and is totally against the occupation of iraq.
surely, you'll say that the majority of americans are for staying there??????
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"FAR more people have died during u.s. occupation than at any other time. "
So are you mad at the Islamic fundies who are responsible for this war? Are you upset that you can't understand why Communism is evil, even after 100 million persons were murdered between just Mao, Stalin & Lenin? Hitler's policies were utterly left wing as well, although he didn't call it communism. Considering all this had happened, you see why Kennedy thought vietnamese communism was potentially a no risk
itreeye 3 years ago
what does mao stalin and lenin have to do with ANYTHING today? what are you babbling about? typical whitetrash comparison...just yell about the 'next hitler' every few years to justify america's next war. we're all sick of it and your paranoia. get over it.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"what does mao stalin and lenin have to do with ANYTHING "
I thought you knew we were discussing how left wing ideology (bad ideas, from the left) has made the past 100 years the bloodiest in human history. This isn't paranoia, it is fact. Yet you insist on being ignorant of the fact that if it weren't for the US, it would have and would be an even far worse world than it is.
Please kmardes, PAY ATTENTION. :)
itreeye 3 years ago
and where in the world are there movements even remotely similar to those of mao etc? the one MOST similar would be the american one. they're the only ones constantly invading other countries, places bases where ever they can, putting in puppet governments, and overconsuming natural resorces (25-30% with only 4% of the population).
if it weren't for the u.s.? russia did waaaay more to defeat germany than america ever did. i see you're still living in your john wayne fantasy world.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"where in the world are there movements even remotely similar to those of mao etc? the one MOST similar would be the american one."
Mao slaughtered and starved his own people.
"russia did waaaay more to defeat germany than america ever did."
So America didn't save Europe and Australia, etc.?
Have you ever heard of the Russian genocidal murderer named Stalin? Are you praising him for his role re Hitler? Do you see no difference between good and evil?
What is wrong with you?
itreeye 3 years ago
america helped to defeat germany, but russia did the bulk of the work.
you brought up stalin etc as if there is some constant cosmic evil force and america is this good entity which deals with this. stop dreaming and romanticizing.
tbe u.s. has military in over 100 countries. what part of 'empire' don't you get? this is not a coincidence and it is NOT done for some 'greater good'. its business to open foreign markets to u.s. corporations.
your holier-than-thou b.s. is just that, smoke screen
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"tbe u.s. has military in over 100 countries. what part of 'empire' don't you get?"
What part of the word 'empire' do you not grasp? Since when does an empire not acknowledge it's own territory? You are saying that Japan and Germany are secretly ruled by the US via corporations? And you say that I'm romanticizing? Even if there is any truth to this, since when does a successful buiss. in Germany not benefit the people working there? & so what if they make a better shampoo; who cares!?!
itreeye 3 years ago
it doesn't have to be 'empire' in the classical sense like roman times.. as i see you twist words to try to save face for your weak and feeble arguments.
yes, its empire building in a modern way. expanse. control. leverage. just look at the monroe doctrine and manifest destiny... i see you gladly forget to address those. america's 'god given' right to control nor/south america etc etc.. its just done in a less obvious and blunt way, but it is still control and govts are blackmailed.you're wrong
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"it doesn't have to be 'empire' in the classical sense like roman times.. as i see you twist words"
How is asking the question, when in history has an empire not even declared its territory, much less had a major part in that countries politics, resources and culture? never. Your model of an empire doesn't exist. If you contend that US corporations are taking advantage somehow, than work to elect a legislator to combat the injustice. Most poor countries have corrupt, oppressive govs.
itreeye 3 years ago
my model of an empire does exist. and many people even openly talk about the 'end of the american empire'.. i here it everywhere. the u.s. govt isn't much better than these 'small govts'. the last quarter century has practically been a hiearchy of 2 families! albania has more variation than that.
it isn't as easy as electing this or that legislator. corporations have a stranglehold as do powerful INTEREST lobbies.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"...corporations have a stranglehold as do powerful INTEREST lobbies."
umm, to do what exactly? Every totalitarian regime in history has had an ideological agenda of some kind. Even if it is just near pure slavery and oppression (read N Korea). I really don't think some yubbo getting that extra yacht counts. geesh..
itreeye 3 years ago
bottom line, america has NO legal right to do what its doing. period. it is in the wrong.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"bottom line, america has NO legal right to do what its doing. period. it is in the wrong."
You keep harping back to that point about legality. Who made this law? It used to be illegal to free one's slave. This doesn't make it wrong to have done so. You still aren't making much of an argument there. The UN (if that's who you are talking about) has Syria on their panel. They are an Amoral group, thus incapable of moral judgment of any weight. History shows a whitewashed tomb.
itreeye 3 years ago
syria doesn't have bases all over the world and ITS territory is occupied illegally as we speak. once again, you give the u.s. a free pass as the double standard lives strong in your eyes. typical right wing narrowmindedness on your part. keep it up.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
The difference between Syria and the US is that the US is good. That is what makes us great, you see. When we stop being good, we cease being great. (That's an quote from I can't remember whom);
How do I know? Syria neglects human rights 4 their own people at a degree which would be intolerable here. Anyway, I think I finally understand our difference. Or why you can't seem to grasp much of the common sense ideas and examples I've offered to you.
I will expound in a follow up note...
itreeye 3 years ago
you way overgeneralized. just because the u.s. is 'good' doesn't give it the right to plop bases all over the world and invade anyone whenever it wants.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"just because the u.s. is 'good' doesn't give it the right to plop bases all over the world.."
If someone was doing evil, or it was within your power to prevent evil being done next door, it would be your duty as a decent person to try and stop the evil being done. I know I simplify with this, but it is the only way I can make my point. Of course the US has "the right", just as any other person or government would have "the right", in certain contexts, to foster good in replace of evil.
itreeye 3 years ago
waaaaaay oversimplified. and who gives you the authority to decide what is good and evil? who says things have to exist in this black and white - white is so typical of you right wing redneck religous nuts.
i think you are evil. i think you insult many peoples of the earth with your occupations.
you are the threat to peace.
you are evil.
there.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"waaaaaay oversimplified. and who gives you the authority to decide what is good and evil"
There are absolutes that we can all agree on when it comes to good and evil. Like it is not right imprison or hurt a child, rape a woman, abuse someone infirmed, etc. etc. etc. How can you not know this? I don't understand where your thoughts that I am 'evil', or 'holier than thou' come from in this context? It doesn't make any sense!?
Anyway, whatever.
cheers :)
itreeye 3 years ago
and you call invading a country unilaterally, with the largest worldwide demonstrations against it ever, a moral absolute.
you're wrong.
and billions (not millions) of people agree with me, not you.
you think you are holier than thou by thinking you have the right to invade and occupy a country(ies) because you feel like its a good idea.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
" the largest worldwide demonstrations against it ever"
Every one of these protesters have no moral authority in context of a simple fact. They did *not* protest before the US took out Saddam, when Saddam himself was murdering people. Why did they not care about those people? Why do they not care about the millions now enslaved in N Korea? Why didn't 'the world' protest about Sudan, or Rwanda or any other ongoing human tragedy? The world could make a diff., but does not care. hypocrites
itreeye 3 years ago
because the protesters knew that the iraq invasion would make a small problem much much bigger with bad consequences. duhhhhh
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"because the protesters knew that the iraq invasion would make a small problem much much bigger with bad consequences. duhhhhh"
I asked why people don't expend energy to fight great evils, like genocide in Rwanda, as they do against Bush.
Anyway & again, if the whole world had stood by ousting Saddam, the war would have been long over by now. Al Qaida or similar would have been discouraged, not encouraged as they were by the division. duh.
itreeye 3 years ago
why didn't they stop rwanda? because there is no oil there. can't you figure that out? how many times have i told you its about interests? you only hear what you want to hear and believe what you want to believe.
delusional
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"why didn't they stop rwanda? because there is no oil there. "
I was talking about "the world" when I asked about Rwanda, not just the USA. Are you saying that all your beloved socialist countries that are also allied with us in Iraq just care about oil? Are you saying that countries that are not part of the coalition didn't care about Rwanda for some other reason? Pray tell.
itreeye 3 years ago
there is no further conv until you read about the monroe doctrine and manifest destiny.
history did not begin from yesterday. you're obviously way behind.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"no further conv until you read about the monroe doctrine "
I'll wait to answer my question about the first Gulf war.
itreeye 3 years ago
then you'll be waiting a long time. i first brought up monroe doctrine and manifest destiny (huge points)...
typical avoid the topic response, cos you won't have a justification for it.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
Okay I looked up the Monroe doctrine. Wikipedia tells me it is was a doctrine established in 1823 relating to the idea that of being against pre-emptive war. Is that what you're excited about? What about Korea? Vietnam? The Balkins? Pananma? Kosovo? to name just a few. Were these places that attacked the US? I don't think so. Neither was Iraq in 1992 when it raped Kuwait and was on the brink of throwing the entire mid-east (thus the world) into chaos. I don't see the significance.
itreeye 3 years ago
i'd like to see a list of 'collateral damage/deaths' caused by the u.s. military since ww2. oh, and let's not forget that the u.s. military alone is the largest polluter on the planet.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"collateral damage/deaths' caused by the u.s. military since ww2. ...the u.s. military alone is the largest polluter on the planet."
Largest polluter on the planet? you've got to be kidding me. China alone beats us.
Also, if it wasn't for the US we'd all be enslaved or dead. That is the most likely scenario in context of these last 100 years.
The 100 million killed in this time by left wingers were real people, by the way. Why don't you care?
itreeye 3 years ago
no way, the u.s. is the biggest polluter by far. china will eventually pass, but they also have 4 TIMES as many people. duhhhh who is doing the overconsuming here??
spare me the we'd be enslaved speech. in modern times of the info. age no invasion of iraq was necessary, nor justified, nor legal, nor moral.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"no way, the u.s. is the biggest polluter by far."
And how do you know this nugget of knowledge? Is it from China's adherence to statistical accuracy and truth telling in general? LOL :)
P.S.
Also if the liberation of Iraq from the murderous dictator was illegal than the UN should give back the 6 billion they've *accepted* from us every year since our "illegal effort". haha., ya right.
How old are you by the way?
itreeye 3 years ago
saddam did his murdering in the 80s for the most part. even before the u.s. invaded kurds had their own defacto area of iraq. so, taking him out in 2003 was a lame lame lame excuse... as are all of your excuses.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"Saddam did his murdering in the 80s for the most part. ...taking him out in 2003 was a lame lame lame excuse... as are all of your excuses."
haha, "for the most part" Just don't mention that millions of Iraqi people lived in fear as his sons roved around picking up woman for their rape rooms, or people they didn't like to throw into their giant meat grinder. Also, why was Saddam found to be developing WMD when we went in? What is your lame excuse Mr. fancy pants? :)
itreeye 3 years ago
kmardes:
U.S. President John F. Kennedy at an August 29, 1962 news conference:
The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today. That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in the Organization of American States and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba."
itreeye 3 years ago
not only keeping foreign influence (that is open to interpretation) out, but putting u.s. influence to the forefront (i.e., you work for US now).
manifest destiny is even more telling. its god's plan that the u.s. may spread and take control of more land. go westward, and beyond. its our 'right'. we are holier than thou.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"go westward, and beyond. its our 'right'. we are holier than thou."
Maybe its because you were raised in a public school, but you miss the point about the core American value. *All* people are free, and have rights, just because they are alive. This 'doctrine' of having inalienable rights, outside of any objective opinion, no matter how powerful, is unique to America. If the individual is free, than there is no paradigm for conquest as you accuse.
Sorry but you just don't make sense.
itreeye 3 years ago
you're so full of it as you twist words to meet your personal agenda and the interpretation which sounds nice to you. the doctrine is to spread american borders and control.
you're wrong, again.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"you're so full of it as you twist words to meet your personal agenda "
Do you mean when wrote that *All* people are free, and have rights, just because they are alive. Okay, so you think I made that up and it is not a core, foundational US value. Can you at least admit that it would be good if it was?
P.S.
That wasn't very nice to say that I'm 'full of it'. But don't worry, I don't take you seriously enough to feel bad from your abuse.
itreeye 3 years ago
anyone who supports the iraq occupation is full of it. its wrong from every perspective. the country wasn't even a threat to itself in 2003. embargoes were long in place, small unorganized military, etc. And the u.s. saw a ripe fruit for the picking where it could gain a foothold in the strategic region. very simple.
and you're sitting her preeching that we did it to 'help' the iraqis, because we felt like spreading 'goodness'?
how naive are you??? very much, i see
kmardes 3 years ago
yes, its the u.s. who is doing the 'evil'..using fabricated reasons to occupy and expand. very basic. its call Psyops. who do you think you're fooling? in this information age, the whitetrash breed is slowly losing ground. eyes are being opened.
a few more days, and your boys are out of power haha
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"a few more days, and your boys are out of power haha"
Like I said, I welcome and am interested to see what you do with all your new found power. Remember, with great power comes great responsibility. It is not about ego, or fun, it is about hard decision. Obama himself will have to make decisions that determine who will live and who will die, as all Presidents before him. I will pray for him and hope for the best, always.
cheers brother,
:)
itreeye 3 years ago
save your prayers, i'm atheist
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"save your prayers, i'm atheist"
What does you being an atheist have to do with my prayers for Obama and our Country?
There you go with that embarrassing lack in logic again. ;)
itreeye 3 years ago
like i said, 90% of the world agrees with me, not you :)
but you can keep living in your right wing fantasy world if it keeps you happy (delusional)
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"like i said, 90% of the world agrees with me, not you :) "
Like I said, the world, even 99% of it, means nothing next to truth or what is right. 90% of the world used to accept slavery in society as a normal thing. They were wrong. So are you, about America.
itreeye 3 years ago
in this case, yes,, 90% of the world knows the truth - invading other countries for no reason is 'evil', as you would say.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
" invading other countries for no reason is 'evil', as you would say."
Of course I would say that invading other another country, or anywhere (BTW why are you so hung up on Nationalism as a lefty?) with just cause cause is evil. Evil is evil. If someone a raping a child in a home, someone should invade the home to stop the evil. If the rapist invades a home to hurt a child than someone should stop them. You think the Bush is the rapist, I don't; I think, or know, that Saddam was.
itreeye 3 years ago
kmardes:
P.S.
By the way, are you in support of the first Gulf war, or not? ...just curious.
itreeye 3 years ago
kmardes:
Also, what is so great about America is that if we are interfering unjustly either domestically or internationally, our innate sense of what is right and good should help us, 'we the people', to move government to stop or do otherwise. I think this has a lot to do with your emotional motivation, and I respect that. Yet what I don't understand is the willingness to attribute such evil in motive to near all history of the US' interfering behavior we've talked about. Seems over the top.
itreeye 3 years ago
inate sense? that is completely relative. my sense is that you have a holier than thou attitude and you live by a double standard.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
you sound angry
itreeye 3 years ago
you sound ignorant. not an insult, just a fact.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"you sound ignorant. not an insult, just a fact."
If I am ignorant of something, this means I simply do not know some knowledge that you claim to know. Yet telling someone that they are ignorant of some fact, without choosing to enlighten them at the same time, is by definition an insult. Didn't you *know* that? ;)
itreeye 3 years ago
and to back up why you're holier than thou, i see that you find yourself exempt of criticism. typical right wing.. your way or the highway.
and now you're going to defend the monroe doctrine and manifest destiny?????
yeah, i didn't think so...
you lose
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
I dare you to answer this. Why do you only care about Nationalism when it has to do with preventing the helping of others? You know damn well that if the whole world had stood as one against Saddam, the war as it is would have been long over. You know that if the world stood as one against genocide in Rwanda, we could have stopped it. You know the same about N Korea. We, as a planet, could free them. Yet by your inaction you do not care about those people, and that is what I call evil.
itreeye 3 years ago
yep, just as i thought. avoid the monroe doctrine and manifest destiny questions.
yep...
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"...avoid the monroe doctrine and manifest destiny questions."
I don't know what you're talking about, but I don't want to google & get into debate because in general, of course there are examples of both sides behaving less then perfectly in probably all areas of importance. Either that or there are many conspiracy type theory's as well on both sides. The fact that it is a theory means it is more productive to talk about what we do know, as well as what values we have and why.
itreeye 3 years ago
you don't even know what the monroe doctrine is????????????????
manifest destiny??????
don't even bother writing another messages until you look into those two things.
no wonder you're so brainwashed
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
Remember, at its very core America believes that it's people are the greatest resource, and exactly why it is so successful. That is why liberty must be the greatest value, and before equality even.
Tell me why the car, the lightbulb, so much music (jazz, rock, blues) movies, airplane, telephone, PCs, so much medicine, etc. has come out of the US. It is because of this heart for valuing freedom above all. It really is beautiful.
itreeye 3 years ago
well, america has also stolen many great scientists..bribe with money etc, like the german after ww2 who built rockets etc.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"well, america has also stolen many great scientists..bribe with money etc, like the german..."
I think it is amusing how the left gets so bent out of shape at even the suggestion that people call them unpatriotic. Yet I have never heard a *single* instance of this by any major commentator. They basically made it up. Yet, I think, from this thread, I can see why the left gets so defensive at even the thought. Me thinks thou dost protest too much. haha :)
itreeye 3 years ago
the right is known for war mongering and heavy handedness and 'spreading democracy' (by the sword).. as you so strongly support.
even you have to admit that the majority of americans are against the war in iraq yet u.s. forces continue to occupy it because its in the interests of corportations and the military industrial complex.
people are catching on. the show is over.
maybe one day there'll be real justice and you'll get a taste of your own medicine.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"the right is known for war mongering and heavy handedness and 'spreading democracy' (by the sword).. as you so strongly support."
Wrong. The left is all about capitalizing on compassion (the worst kind of capitalism) and is generally unwilling to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil. Yet if someone were breaking into their home they would call the police to potentially wage war on the intruder.
Also people don't want to be enslaved, no matter what you say. All are loved
itreeye 3 years ago
kmardes:
"You brought up stalin etc as if there is some constant cosmic evil force and america is this good entity which deals with this. "
If you look at America's history in this world, what you've just said is actually very close to the truth. Tell me, who else would have (& will) keep the wolves at bay? Russia fought Germany since the Nazis attacked Russia. You didn't mention that, nor will you acknowledge the significance of the difference in motive between us and Russia at the time.
itreeye 3 years ago
there it is, i knew that is what you thought. of course russia fought germany cos it was attacked, and the u.s. fought germany cos it declared war on the u.s. Make no mistake, the u.s. glaaaadly took the spoils of war. it was not all done for the 'good'. infact, in the 1930s there was MORE than enough cooperation between the u.s. and hitler's germany. its ALL about interests.
i don't mention many things because of the limit of characters. plus, your head is too brainwashed to understand anyways
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes
"..its ALL about interests."
Yes, of course I agree. Yet my argument is that there are core values which the US has which Russia did not. Values related to our 'inaliable rights'. Because we are alive, we have rights. Not because any rights are granted by those in power who have power over life & death. The default in humanity is to rule with such power; ie. fear of death makes me obey. The US is unique in history, as 'life = rights' is the power over ourselves to self govern. It is good
itreeye 3 years ago
there it is, you admit its about interests (economic NOT moral)
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"there it is, you admit its about interests (economic NOT moral)"
No my point was that sometimes it is impossible to separate the two. For example, if we had let Iraq to win against Iran, or take over Kuwait, they would have been in a position more likely to thrust the whole mid-east into chaos, end our oil supply from there, ruining our economy overnight, thus hurting many citizens (some to death) and thus it was economic and moral to support Iran and Kuwait in that context.
itreeye 3 years ago
haha... was a dramatization in ref to your oil shortage scenario. sounds like a good hollywood script.
kmardes 3 years ago
kmardes:
"sounds like a good hollywood script."
So you don't believe that if the US' major supply of oil were to be cut off overnight, that this wouldn't be a matter of National security? Why not?
itreeye 3 years ago
no, its america's problem that they so selfishly consume 30% of the world's natural resources when they have 4% of the population. ever here of DISCREPENCY? POLLUTION? EXTERNALITIES?
kmardes 3 years ago
asdf
tribblesnacks 3 years ago
qwer
itreeye 3 years ago
kmardes:
Again, I would like you to tell me why 3 major countries that make up a significant part of the UN have no accountability for their decisions in regards Iraq. It came out afterwards that they had selfish reasons for not becoming part of the coalition and propelling UN approval (thus, 'The World's') for ousting Saddam. Imagine if "The World" had all been one in this endevour. Please, try and imagine this.
There was no question that SH was a mass murderer & no leader. Why don't you care?
itreeye 3 years ago
you're so full of it. why didn't america 'care' in the 80s and 90s? they supported a known dictator as long as it was in their interests. period.
you're such a fox puppet.
also, why don't you look up how many UN condemnations israel has.. more than any other country. look up how many resolutions they are ignoring.
i don't see you whining about them now...