Terrorism

[Tasha]

In this topic I would like to point out exactly why terrorism exists and how it is caused.

It is very easy to get answers by asking yourself simple questions. Many americans may ask: Why us? Why are we the target of a terrorist attack from these groups and not another country?

Well as we all know there is a cause and effect to everything. Obviously these people do not like us you must say. Why would they not like us? Well if you really look into facts the united states hasnt exactly been nice to the people in this region. Creating coups, puppet governments, violence, and wars. This has created quite a disliking for the united states. These recent wars will only cause more hating and future attacks.

When you look at history on war and war crimes the US has been at or near the top of the list including the biggest terrorist attacks in the history of the world. How does it come as such a surprise to people that there is such fierce resistance to its country that supports only "peace" and justice. Well this is a clear reminder that the US provides propaganda to its public. Nationalism ruins people and creates hate.

Currently the US is trying to quell dissent with propaganda and war on so called "terrorist" nations. As we all know world opinion has changed of the USA from the recent gulf war.

There is a really wonderful quote i am not sure who the author is but it goes something like this "It is not the rebels that create the troubles of the world, but it is the troubles that create the rebels". Putting it very short, had the US not have made enemies there would be no terrorists.

In my conclusion i would like to point out that it is ignorant to fight fire with fire because in reality you will only end up with a bigger fire. The US government believes it needs to magnify the violence thrown against them by 10 times. Not only does this cause more bloodshed it also fuels the fire for hatred on the other side. This is the cause of terrorism and war.


(Edited by Tasha at 6:27 am on July 7, 2003)


(Edited by Tasha at 6:29 am on July 7, 2003)


(Edited by Tasha at 6:30 am on July 7, 2003)


(Edited by Tasha at 6:57 am on July 7, 2003)

[Loknar]

When you look at history on war and war crimes the US has been at the top of the list including the biggest terrorist attacks in the history of the world.


THis is a heavy charge.

On the list of warcrimes Russia and Japan would surpass the US.

I want you to prove this claim.

[Tasha]

I was thinking off the top of my head wmd for example hiroshima, nagasaki, and agent orange.

[Loknar]

Those are good points certainly Tasha, but still I think it is inaccurate to brand the US as the worse war crminals ever.

[Tasha]

I never really pointed directly that they were the #1 war criminals in the world but were among the top, still i have edited my post.

[sc4r]

A marvelous post Tasha. I think that may be the calmest most succinct statement of the problem I've ever read.

[notyetacommie]

Quote: from Loknar on 6:47 am on July 7, 2003



When you look at history on war and war crimes the US has been at the top of the list including the biggest terrorist attacks in the history of the world.


THis is a heavy charge.

On the list of warcrimes Russia and Japan would surpass the US.

I want you to prove this claim.





???? Examples, please. I am particularly interested in the war crimes committed by Russia. What are they? How can they be compared to the many atrocities committed by the USA?

[Ghost Writer]

I think your post proves your general lack of understanding regarding the mindset of the people who wish to destroy the ways of the west. I think this is ironic, since this understanding is the stated goal of your writing here. You fault Unites States foreign policy without giving any thought to the fanaticism that drives those who commit homocide bombings in the name of Allah.

One must remember that it was the United States who saved the Saudi monarchy from destruction by Saddam Hussien, when he clearly launched an aggressive war to aqcuire more real estate in the Middle East. If the U.S. government wouldn't have stepped in in 1991 then Hussien would have continued his blitzkrieg across the region.

You must realize that our enemy views the United States, as a superpower, as an extension of the crusades. Our enemy is stuck in the 12th century. Their views on women, and freedom, in general, demonstrates this point. Those who hand down orders to attack civilian targets care nothing about those starving in Iraq, or of human life. They simply use that as a tool of recruitment. However, they do take issue with troops stationed in what they consider to be their 'holy lands', not because they care about their religion, but because our presence offers a significant obstacle for their stated purpose, which is to "fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem".

To understand the madness associated with those who use foriegn policy as an excuse to indoctrinate countless Middle Easterners with an especially viralent brand of Islam we must take a look at their schools, their philosophy, and the clerics who spread a disease, where "nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life". Apparently, it is not the religion that is the most sacred, but the damage one can inflict on an enemy that is perceived to threaten that religiocity. Rest assured, we are seen as a threat to a worldview that has "been sent with the sword between" its "hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders."

It is true that troops in a region dominated by a conservative religion that breeds this kind of fundamentalism is a threat to the stated goal of imposing this religion on the entire world; because these terrorists are having a hard time gaining a power base when they must operate in remote areas and fear surfacing their ugly heads for too long of a period. We have seen what happens when they are left alone. Afghanistan is just one example, Iran another. Of course, murdering terrorists would take issue with our operating within the region, because they can not act with the kind of impunity needed to subjugate large populations into submission.

The real reason they hate us has to do with our culture. These search engine results (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=sex+pictures) will demonstrate why. We are producing a culture that wastes, has no need for religion, and offers conveniences that make it easy to stray away from religious doctrine. Our modernization, has relegated God to a mere figment of the imagination. The West, with all of its luster and ease, spreads like a cancer infecting everything exposed to the vile corruption of satellite T.V., where channels like Skin-o-max pump raw sex into every paying household on a regular bases.

Of course, the soft product market is driven by the marketing geniuses that have sold Western goods as a mindset rather than material goods. In fact, we have seen the emergence of an economy that does transcend the material world, Hollywood. No longer is there a need to produce something that has a specific purpose. Billions of dollars are generated worldwide through the box office, not to mention VHS, DVD, and the pop music that comprise the sound track. However, the same marketing geniuses have realized that this is also a good marketing tool, so they use it to generate larger dollar figures through tie-in marketing and subtle, some would say, subliminal messaging.

Hollywood and the media are a very powerful socializing influence. Attitudes and perceptions can be manipulated, as was the realization of the government that used it during WWII to heighten nationalist sentiments in a population needed to fight and produce during a wartime economy. When the war ended propagandists went to work in marketing and spawned the juggernaut known by Richard R. Barber, as the "infotainment-telesector" of the economy. This is the powerful tool that spreads a new ideology, one of consumption, and narcissism. An ideology that remains the antithesis of a 7th Century religion in badly need of a reformation, similar to that of the Martin Luther's. America is the epitome of that ideology, and the main source of the entertainment that threatens the conservative values of Muslims. Islam is acting out of self defense, because it can sense its extinction on the horizon. Its demise will be at the hand of pop culture, since it influences the younger generations, forever changing the political culture of a society.

Keep in mind this is just one aspect of the Islamo-facists hatred for the United States. If we really wanted to get into the foreign policy aspect, I think a hard look at Islamic anti-semetism would be needed; since the establishment of Israel in the Middle East, and the United States' continued support is more of a key issue than anything discussed by the originator of this thread. Playing the blaim America first card will not work, in this case, since it is not only irrelevant to the survival of my country and its culture, but also too simplistic to be taken seriously by anyone familiar with the geopolitics of the Middle East.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 9:21 am on July 7, 2003)

[notyetacommie]

Just one question: Are you a Christian or a Jew, Ghost Writer?

[Ghost Writer]

Niether, I am too smart to be caged by the machinery of organized religion.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 9:31 am on July 7, 2003)

[notyetacommie]

and you are ready to impose your unholiness on other people?

[mentalbunny]

Well Tasha, you can fight fire with fire, you burn the land around the fire in a controlled way, which stops the original fire from spreading, but in a metaphorical sense you are right, for this situation.

I think on balance tasha and GW have it, the values of the US cause a lot of problems in the Islamic world, but I think in some cases it's a little more. The most recent string of attacks were started due to values but people are starting to see the US as a military oppressor as weell, since Afghanistan and iraq. I may be wrong but I think the current climate in Iraq is not due to different socials values but due to the occupation of the country.

Unfortunately I don't know very much on this subject but it wass very interesting to see what Tasha and GW had to say, I agree with GW on the reasons for some of the terrorism, but I do not agree that it's ok, America should do something about it, terrorism can be very crippling!

[Loknar]

Quote: from notyetacommie on 9:09 am on July 7, 2003

Quote: from Loknar on 6:47 am on July 7, 2003



When you look at history on war and war crimes the US has been at the top of the list including the biggest terrorist attacks in the history of the world.


THis is a heavy charge.

On the list of warcrimes Russia and Japan would surpass the US.

I want you to prove this claim.





???? Examples, please. I am particularly interested in the war crimes committed by Russia. What are they? How can they be compared to the many atrocities committed by the USA?



Japanese- Invasion of China, the most famous example would be the Rape of Nanking.

RUssia- They were animals. Rapeing was so common especially in Berlin. Stalin knew what was happening but he did lirttle to stop it.

America never comitted atrosities on such a large scale.

[Bianconero]

Niether, I am too smart to be caged by the machinery of organized religion.

You sure are some smart - ass, Ghost Wanker.

people who wish to destroy the ways of the west.

Gimme a fucking break. Your general lack of understanding the materialistic analysis of society, world politics and economy is what ridicules you.

You know nothing, your "views" make me laugh.

One must remember that it was the United States who saved the Saudi monarchy from destruction by Saddam Hussien, when he clearly launched an aggressive war to aqcuire more real estate in the Middle East. If the U.S. government wouldn't have stepped in in 1991 then Hussien would have continued his blitzkrieg across the region.

So what? The US were only "stepping in" out of economic reasons. It's not like they did it because of their "love" for people who suffered under Hussein. They only worried about "their" oil in Kuwait etc.

Again, you are naive and waisting everybody's time with these inputs.

Concerning your crusade against religion, you are somewhat right though. But then, the US are, in many ways, just the same as Islamic countries. The ruling class, both in the US and islamist states, brainwashes the working masses by telling them it's all about religion (many countries in the middle west) or nationality (US etc.). And indeed people believe them (you are an example), fight for their "beliefs" (nationality, religion, ...) and help the ruling class with their idiocy.

It is always the same and you are just as stupid as some kamikaze Islamist bombing himself up in Jerusalem.

[Ghost Writer]

"Creating coups, puppet governments, violence, and wars."

I don't suppose you would like to give any specifics that back up your allegations, would you? What coups have we created? What puppet governments have been installed? Name this violence that we caused, and the wars we started in the Middle East?

[Tasha]

There are many coups to name. One big one that I would like to point out would be the 1953 coup of Iran. The united states clearly did this to install a puppet government to secure its oil interests. This also set teh stage for the 1979 revolution and much anti-americanism in that area today.

Another the IRan-Iraq war the united states clearly had no business in this war. As we all know Iraq attacked Iran. Most Iranians did not even have weapons but had pitchforks and knives. Casualties were enormous from this war most of them from the Iranian side. Over 1 million people died in this conflict. We all know that Iran would begin to win the war therefore the United states pursued to helping IRaq with weapons of mass destruction to be used on civilian targets, as well as sattelite intelligence which caused massive casualties.

Also in regard to your post with their teachings of how america is the great satan or what not in their religion. Of course there is a reason for this as well. When the Usa commits all of these atrocities of course people will preach that it is evil. If the USA withdrew all troops from this region stopped looking after their interests in this area Instead of spending billions and billions of dollars on war, throwing away excess food to preserve their interests instead of feeding the starving people of the world. Do you not think the united states could take numerous simple steps to win world opinion?

[Loknar]

Tasha , the Coup in 53 was a predominately British sponsored coup. British oil companies are the ones who were drilling for oil in Iran.

Iraq-Iran war- America wasn’t the only country to help out both sides.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/ira-n-q2.gif

(Edited by Loknar at 9:56 pm on July 7, 2003)

[elijahcraig]

The US was just as dominant in that coup in Iran. Kermit Roosevelt later got rich from that, among others.

[Loknar]

America was involved, however the British were the major participant. Remember they were the ones who orgionally installed the Shah.

[elijahcraig]

Yeah, they were. It really doesn't matter to me, I see these countries as one big imperialistic state.

Here's a summary of the coup by William Blum:

Iran, 1953:
Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.


Here are some others by William Blum:

A Brief History of U.S. Interventions:
1945 to the Present
by William Blum
Z magazine , June 1999



The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
* making the world safe for American corporations;
* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."
This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.
The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.
China, 1945-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.
Italy, 1947-48:
Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.
Greece, 1947-49:
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.
Philippines, 1945-53:
U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.
South Korea, 1945-53:
After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.
Albania, 1949-53:
The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.
Germany, 1950s:
The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.
Iran, 1953:
Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.
Guatemala, 1953-1990s:
A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.
Middle East, 1956-58:
The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "Communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.
Indonesia, 1957-58:
Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. He refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.
British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:
For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.
One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.
Vietnam, 1950-73:
The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with ..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of Communist.
Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.
Cambodia, 1955-73:
Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.
Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.
The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:
In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.
Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.
Brazil, 1961-64:
President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington line was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil...but, still, the country has been saved from communism.
For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship that Latin America has come to know were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized...disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture...the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.
Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.
Dominican Republic, 1963-66:
In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought " showcase of democracy " that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.
Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.
A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.
In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.
Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.
Cuba, 1959 to present:
Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.
The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea.
Indonesia, 1965:
A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately-of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers, and none of the above-was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.
It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. "
Chile, 1964-73:
Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power-an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.
After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.
They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.
Greece, 1964-74:
The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for j national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a "Communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory.
It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.
Becket reported the following: Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we are Americans."
George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-Communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take Greece out of the Cold War, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a satellite of the United States.
East Timor, 1975 to present:
In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. Iaw, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.
Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job.
Nicaragua, 1978-89:
When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast-"another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guard and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.
Grenada, 1979-84:
What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a country of 110,000? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again driven by its fear of "another Cuba," particularly when public appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region met with great enthusiasm.
U. S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers.
At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.
In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books which were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the prime minister suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-confidence vote resulting from what his critics called "an increasingly authoritarian style."
Libya, 1981-89:
Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The U. S . also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter. There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any good evidence.
Panama, 1989:
Washington's bombers strike again. December 1989, a large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S. and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died; 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.
Question from reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to their death for this? To get Noriega?"
George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes, it has been worth it."
Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent dissolution of the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.
Iraq, 1990s:
Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological weapon storage and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these things, even more adults.
Iraq was the strongest military power among the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price. "
Afghanistan, 1979-92:
Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.
El Salvador, 1980-92:
El Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protesters and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.
Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.
Haiti, 1987-94:
The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death squads, torturers, and drug traffickers. With this as background, the Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend-because of all their rhetoric about "democracy"-that they supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving literally starvation wages.
Yugoslavia, 1999:
The United States is bombing the country back to a pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses. Perhaps the above history of U.S. interventions can help one decide how much weight to place on this claim.

[notyetacommie]

Quote: from Loknar on 6:12 pm on July 7, 2003

Quote: from notyetacommie on 9:09 am on July 7, 2003

Quote: from Loknar on 6:47 am on July 7, 2003



When you look at history on war and war crimes the US has been at the top of the list including the biggest terrorist attacks in the history of the world.


THis is a heavy charge.

On the list of warcrimes Russia and Japan would surpass the US.

I want you to prove this claim.





???? Examples, please. I am particularly interested in the war crimes committed by Russia. What are they? How can they be compared to the many atrocities committed by the USA?



Japanese- Invasion of China, the most famous example would be the Rape of Nanking.

RUssia- They were animals. Rapeing was so common especially in Berlin. Stalin knew what was happening but he did lirttle to stop it.

America never comitted atrosities on such a large scale.



Well, that Berlin thing again. It is not documented. I guess that's a piece of propaganda shit your CIA has started to make the army that defeated fascism look bad because they reached Berlin first.

There were brutalities on the Russian side, with many people incarcerated for looting and violence ( which we will never see happening to the US soldiers- and it's not that they haven't committed anything- they have, in fact, it's their major weapon- but it's your foreign policy of supporting crime that will never get them jailed. Proof? The US refused to supply military aid to the countries who didn't sign a document stating that the US soldier cannot be tried in court for war crimes- in other words, you admit that there might be war criminals in the American army, but they shouldn't be tried in court), but none of the cases was about raping.

Moreover, even if it was true, there were a lot of Soviet soldiers whose whole families were slaughted by the German soldiers- what do you think they would feel? This is not the case with American soldiers- you can hardly name someone whose whole family was destroyed by the Japanese, the Iraqis, the Iranians- I guess I should name all countries to mention all your victims.

As for the way your country is viewed around the world, please read the article about your current invasion:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...alog/GetContent (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3046363&src=eDialog/GetContent)

If this happened in my city, I would also feel like shooting a couple of "liberators".

[Soul Rebel]

how are people trying to destroy the west? by telling the west to stop imposing their cultural beliefs and ways on others? by refusing to take a part of it? it is the west that is trying to destroy other parts of the world, by trying to make them exactly like the west. sure people may use some violence as a form of resistance, but it really has become the only way to do it.


although many may believe that the us hasnt taken part in terrorist actions- they have. to me one of these is cultural terrorism. the us is constantly trying to get others to "westernize," which to me is terrorism. the us constantly threatens the cultural practices and land of other nations. the us is a bullying nation who wants everyone to do as they say. everyone must meet to their standards or face the consequences. although we dont consider it terrorism it is.

the us's policies regarding foreign relations, environmentalism, etc. are a form of terrorism. we form these policies to benefit us. although other nations may disagree, the us wont budge.

the us also terrorizes its own citizens. we have no true freedom of speech. those that speak out, voicing a different opinion, are subject to constant criticism, jail, etc. we can only speak what the majority believes. not having free health care, letting people suffer because they cannot afford to be taken care of due to low wages. only offering more money to schools that score higher on tests- which happens to be rich white schools-leaving many people without an adequate education, which leaves them without the same opportunity to get a good job. and the list goes on.

[Soul Rebel]

wierd- my post didnt show up as the last one on the ikonboard.

[weepingbuddha]

amen senora

[Loknar]

notyetacommie



Well, that Berlin thing again. It is not documented. I guess that's a piece of propaganda shit your CIA has started to make the army that defeated fascism look bad because they reached Berlin first.

[quote]
Yeah the 'Berlin thing' is something that happened and it IS documented. You are just like the people who will say the Holocaust didn’t happen and the Rape of Nanking was just some American propaganda tool.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#ww2ussr

I suppose Russian soldiers didn’t rape women because they were communists. Only America can be the had guy right? You are very naive.

And we weren’t racing toward Berlin. Eisenhower informed Stalin that American forces wouldn’t press on to Berlin.

[quote]


There were brutalities on the Russian side, with many people incarcerated for looting and violence ( which we will never see happening to the US soldiers- and it's not that they haven't committed anything- they have, in fact, it's their major weapon- but it's your foreign policy of supporting crime that will never get them jailed. Proof? The US refused to supply military aid to the countries who didn't sign a document stating that the US soldier cannot be tried in court for war crimes- in other words, you admit that there might be war criminals in the American army, but they shouldn't be tried in court), but none of the cases was about raping.

Actually just because the UN cant charge Americans doesn’t mean they aren’t court marshaled. Hundreds of American soldiers were court marshaled and executed during WW2 for their crimes and thousands more served time.


Moreover, even if it was true, there were a lot of Soviet soldiers whose whole families were slaughted by the German soldiers- what do you think they would feel? This is not the case with American soldiers- you can hardly name someone whose whole family was destroyed by the Japanese, the Iraqis, the Iranians- I guess I should name all countries to mention all your victims.

So it is ok to allow soldiers to loot and rape and take revenge? Hell no. 2 Wrongs don’t make a right.

About 3600 American families since the 70's have been destroyed because of terrorism.

[CubanFox]

Quote: from Loknar on 7:49 am on July 8, 2003
About 3600 American families since the 70's have been destroyed because of terrorism.

And an infinite amount more foreign ones have been destroyed because of America.

[notyetacommie]

Do you understand the meaning of the expression "even if it was true", Locknar? If my memory serves me right, it means that I think that this event (raping) was highly unlikely. Show me the proof. Your atrocities are well-documented. And stop slinging mud on the USSR (or Russia, for that matter) in response to accusations of your crimes. Because:1. The atrocities committed by Soviets were not as numerous (you only named one, which is questionable to boot, and that means that you can't think of anything else on the spot)
2. They never involved as many civilian casualties as, say, Hiroshima, or cover bombing of Dresden
3. They were NEVER specially targeted at civilians

[Loknar]

Look at the link I provided. I recommend a book called "Berlin" by Anthony Beevor, it goes into what happened and explains the heroic actions by both sides and the crimes done by both sides. And more POW's died in Soviet camps than both Atomic bombs. I am not trying to brush off what America did, I am trying to point out that there actually are other countries that have done far worse than America did. I am not trying to justify America either, I am trying to show everyone that EVERY country has done the crap America has done.


I don’t see why you question what happened in Berlin. By the same logic I could question what happened in Nanking.

[Loknar]

Look at the link I provided. I recommend a book called "Berlin" by Anthony Beevor, it goes into what happened and explains the heroic actions by both sides and the crimes done by both sides. And more POW's died in Soviet camps than both Atomic bombs. I am not trying to brush off what America did, I am trying to point out that there actually are other countries that have done far worse than America did. I am not trying to justify America either, I am trying to show everyone that EVERY country has done the crap America has done.


I don’t see why you question what happened in Berlin. By the same logic I could question what happened in Nanking.

[Unrelenting Steve]

After my lack of knowledge of Allied bombing I researched the whole thing, and it was Brittian who bombed Dresden. But nevermind;
I think theres a big diff in unintentional crap like ur talking about and killing civilians on purpose.

And Im sure that America has done the most crap in the likes of "unintended" colateral damage in any case(this obviously excludes Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
If you cant excuse (bc thats what u where doing, not justifying it but excusing it) all the crap uve done by saying; "look what they did"; then you must admitt, America is as bad as the Nazis'


(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 11:01 pm on July 8, 2003)

[Loknar]

No steve I am not excusing it. I am pointing these things out so you cant have this holier than thou attitude.

[notyetacommie]

The figures presented there are just astonishing. How could you claim that there were "56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" for the USSR overall, with 34 to 49 million under Stalin " when the inaccuracy in these figures is plus/minus 6 millions in the overall deaths and plus/minus 15!!!! million in deaths under Stalin. This inaccuracy accounts for 1/3 of the total.
No wonder I don't believe it.

Moreover, we are talking here to atrocities committed towards other nations by aggressors. If you read even that unfortunate historian, "My Estimate: Very roughly, I'd say that Stalin murdered 1M enemy POWs, 1M of his own soldiers, and some 2-4M Soviet civilians during the War. These numbers are consistant with Conquest's estimate of 10M killed by Stalin, 1939 to 1953, and they easily fit into the 7M civilian deaths, leaving room for 1M Jews and several million others to be killed by the Nazis."

Where are the civilians killed by the Soviets? Where are the documents? You actually gave me the opinions, not the documents, but even they didn't have the number of civilian deaths caused by the Soviets to other, non-Soviet nations.

Berlin wasn't even mentioned there.

[CopperGoat]

"One must remember that it was the United States who saved the Saudi monarchy from destruction by Saddam Hussien"

Ghost Writer, you are really a stupid jerk. You actually support the Saudi Monarchy? The Same monarchy that is absolutely not democratic, the monarchy that represses women and makes them second-class citizens than men. This I hear you are really against, such as being in the 12th century. You have to realize that Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait with the same weapons the US gave him. I mean how hypocritical and stupid can you be?

Fuck face...

[Loknar]

notyetacommie

Those are sources listed. It is easy to do a count of the amount of people who die 1 year and notice a sudden sky rocket the next then a recession the year after.


The listed actually only provides numbers on WW2 specifically. I am providing you proof that the Soviets killed many more people than both A-bombs and American/British bombing campaigns put together

And the paper work is there. The reported deaths per province is the usual; way to count.
Here is another link I want you to look at
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm

Are you telling me Stalin killed nobody?

Info on Berlin:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/berlin_05.shtml

[notyetacommie]

Locknar,

Again, speaking about history, one needs to see the documents, not the opinions. What are the documents here? Who is the woman whose best friend was "gang-raped"? How would a British historian be allowed to Soviet archives? The accusation that the Soviets raped Russian women released from the concentration camps is just ridiculous.

As for your other source, which happens to be on the same site with the first one, with the same questionable author- by the way, I can't get to the main page, for some reason- he stated himself that Stalin's death-poll is 10 mln to 50 mln people with inaccuracy constituting 40 mln. So if we follow his logic, we can "pin up" another 40 million casualties to the US death poll, and your country will then be the most murderous nation in history (which is where it is heading anyway).

The topic was about terrorism, if you still remember, and the starting point was that the US is laying the ground for terrorism by its own FOREIGN POLICY, by AGGRESSION. The atrocities committed by Stalin, however terrible (however doubtful) they were, were in large committed against the Soviet people, not against FOREIGN NATIONS- for the greatest part. You cannot also quote the Soviets on using nuclear weapons, napalm, or depleted uranium on civilian targets- in fact, they haven't used these at all!

As for terrorism as responce to hostility, Russia has had its share too (remember Chechenians?)- which only proves the general rule: evil produces even more evil.
I am against the Chechenian war, it has been a shame for Russia to go there in the first place. You seem to be approving of such wars - and the USA has a worse history of them-at least in the XXth century. Now face the consequences!

[Loknar]

Soviet Archives were opened up a few years ago. Both sides claim that the records prove their side is correct . anyway, why was the abortion rate so high just after Russian soldiers were entering Eastern Europe and Berlin?

Also why is it ridiculous that Russian soldiers raped women that were in concentration camps? I know it ifs far fetched as I have read about a Soviet general who toured the camps and described it and his own emotional state. However it could have happened. It was the Russians who caused the Warsaw uprising so that the Germans would kill most of the freedom fighters and make it easier for the Russians to hold the city.

It is hard to say exactly how many were killed under Stalin, however most sources place it at 20-30 million. The author of the web site is naming sources.
Here is the front page
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm]

The Soviets were horrible in Afghanistan at times, how do you think caves were cleared out? They didn’t go in them selves (I don’t blame them) they pumped gas into them. America used napalm and did strategic bombing and I cant dispute that but others have as well.

I know Chechnya is something Russia has had to contend with. I must admit though that I am very ignorant of what is happening. I've actually been meaning to do some reading on it.

Here is an Alphabetical list
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm

Look at USA, I know we're not innocent but the list has many other countries as well.

[notyetacommie]

Have you read this page?

[Loknar]

Not every article but I've read much. Why?

[notyetacommie]

Sorry, I forgot to attach the link:http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/map-faq3.htm

This kind of explains why I don't belive this stuff too.

[Loknar]

I've read that part actually


What exactly don’t you believe? There is allot of info on the site. You cant allow your personal feeling to impair your judgment. The site says 10-16 million people have been killed because of US foreign policy since WW2, certainly I think it is possible but I’m unsure, however I don’t allow my American pride to cloud my judgment. If it is the truth then I accept it.

I am curious, why do you cover for Russia?

[notyetacommie]

That guy says himself that this particular information can't be trusted.

As for my covering for Russia -the point under discussion was terrorism and the USA. You referred to Russia and Japan as other countries whose foreign policy was as violent as one of the USA, but there's still one big difference.

Russia isn't occupying any foreign countries AT THE MOMENT. Russian soldiers aren't killing civilians in any foreign countries AT THE MOMENT. Russia isn't threatening to use the nuclear weapons AT THE MOMENT (Bush threatened Saddam with that not long ago).

[Loknar]

Actually Russia annexed what they call Klalingrad or East Prussia from Germany (I suppose it's ok though, I am serious actually) and they are technically in a state of war with Japan and hold a few Japanese islands.

The numbers are what is in question, not the history it self. Stalin did sell the food that would have saved his people from starvation to buy industrial equipment. If he was able to increase industry by %600 he must have sold allot of food. Also his purges are well documented, about 80,000 officers executed as well as 3 of the 5 Marshall’s. Plus look at what the Russians did with Polish officers, why were the Brits baffled when they inspected the Pols in Tehran? Because there were no officers among them, they were all shot.

I can bring up other nations aside from Russia. Look at France and their crimes in Algeria. They nailed people to doors.

Why do I bring this up? Because every nation is guilty of crimes, we all have to accept that. And also that you cant have a holier than thou attitude.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Quote: from Loknar on 12:43 am on July 9, 2003
No steve I am not excusing it. I am pointing these things out so you cant have this holier than thou attitude.


We are holy than thou, and ur only just a little better than the Nazis. or at least they believed what their doing, you do horrible stuff and then use propganda to equivicaly enforce denile on ur own citizens.

And we dont support Russia, I personaly support Cuba -some of their actions, but compared to what you do guys do is very tolerable. The thing is America is held acountable to its actions unlike everyone else, Amrecca is the only one that still practices imperialism in the modern age with international law- which you have now basicly demolished. Thanx, you are not saving the world thru ur vigilantism; ony insuring its continued state of volitility.

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 5:31 pm on July 10, 2003)

[Loknar]

This is very amuseing comeing from a SOuth African

[Ghost Writer]

Ghost Writer, you are really a stupid jerk. You actually support the Saudi Monarchy? The Same monarchy that is absolutely not democratic, the monarchy that represses women and makes them second-class citizens than men. This I hear you are really against, such as being in the 12th century. You have to realize that Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait with the same weapons the US gave him. I mean how hypocritical and stupid can you be?

Well dumbass, if you knew anything, you would know that Iraq was a client state of Russia. Therefore, most of the weapons that they had, and that we destroyed in 1991, were Soviet brand, hence, their complete and utter failure on the battlefield. They were out gunned, out classed, and out manuevered.

Furthermore, their people were not even educated as to why they were required to fight, because a despot relies on the ignorance of his people. If you begin to educate them, they may realize that you are feeding them a pack of lies and revolt against you.

It is true that we did provide some support to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. For good reason, I might add. However, our ties to Iraq were superficial and short lived. The amount of aid they acquired from the United States pales in comparison to what was given to them by the Soviets. The Soviets have had a long standing relationship with the Iraqis, hence the presence of Russian intellligence services on the ground in Iraq prior to the current Iraq war. They wanted to remove all evidence of illegally arming them, in violation of the U.N. imposed sanctions. One must wonder if the Russian intellligence service has anything to do we the reason why WMD have not been found. Perhaps their relationship with Iraq ran a little deeper than we first expected. Whatever the case, the Iraqis had help in the cover up, and I would not be surprised if China was also involved.

[Loknar]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/ira-n-q2.gif


Again, the US isnt the only party involved. Hell France gave allot of artillery to Saddam.

[Ghost Writer]

Where are you getting these maps from?

[Loknar]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/iraniraq.htm

[notyetacommie]

Russia only sold Saddam conventional wepons. Designed in the 70s or earlier. In other words- outdated.
You made Saddam destroy all the best weapons (conventional missiles) before you dared step on the Iraqi soil. Saddam didn't use A SINGLE Soviet-made aircraft, too.
As for the aggressive natre of the US foreign policy, check out this table, and see what country threatened most with nuclear attack. No surprise it's the United States. In fact, every nuclear crisis involved the United States. Does it mean that the US now is the biggest threat to the world? If we look at the WMD stock and the readyness to use them, then, yes, the USA is now the biggest threat to the world.
It also harbors terrorists (in fact, it even trains them- as the ones who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Thus, it is a terrorist state. Should it be fought against during the anti-teror campaign? no doubt, yes.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Quote: from Loknar on 7:40 pm on July 10, 2003
This is very amuseing comeing from a SOuth African


I will say that South Africas past is filled with atrocity, not as much as Ameica, but look at the outrage in my country at the time, and the one in your urs at what u have done recently. We try and stop bad things, u just accept the price for maintaiing ur sick level of imperialism- that even destroys international law that seeks to ensure peace. And you keep on saying that u know uve done shit but so does everybody, u r using that as an excuse not to hate or dislike ur country. Do u hate or dislike ur country? My country atoned for its past, apologized for it. Your poeple live in denile and when someone like urself does get to the point of attaining some level of knowledge, u produce some feeble excuse to maintain the faith u obviously place in ur country. We the ones "holy than thou", place no such faith in the things we see as evil, I have no particular need to see a pro Russian argument vindicated in ur eyes, it was as evil as America is now, both should fall. America has done worse thought- but that is irrelevant, the important thing is that we move to the point of changing the evil forces of today into the rubble of tomorrow. You speak as if ur actions are tolerable in the eyes of History, the same history that has judged all those that you compare America to, do u really think America should recieve amensty from this judgment.

[Loknar]

Steve, you see you are very arrogant to think America was the worse ever. Hell the Belgians are worse than us (surely you know of their brutality in Congo) and the French (they nailed people to doors in Algeria), or the Japanese (rape of Nanking) we've never done things like that. The worse we've done was in the Philippines and Japan, we now use precision weaponry thus limiting civilian causalities. South Africa is far from holier than thou

Cassinga Massacre- 700 civilians murdered by the South African army
Angola- Civilian and military deaths total around 500,000


Pretty bloody history for such a holier than thou nation.



Let me teach you something, concerning international policy. Every nation runs this planet the same way, all of them look out for them selves. There is no right and wrong, it is like this: ’ There’s how it is, and how it should be.’

[CubanFox]

Over 5,000 died in Panama, several hundred were massacred in Fort Rupert, Grenada, when the US military allowed the Grenadan army to execute supporters of Maurice Bishop, the communist leader. Around 2,000,000 died in Vietnam, America openly colonized several nations in the Spanish-American War, a democratically elected government was destroyed in 1953 in Guatemala by the CIA.

[Loknar]

Yes all true Fox. Yes Panama was too important to allow a rouge CIA agent to handle, besides Americans built the canal. We sure couldn’t allow Grenada to remain commie. There were North Koreans, Russians, Cubans, East Germans ect. What exactly did we do to allow the Grenadine military to massacre them? Did we just say 'go ahead, blast the commies'?

Russia occupied Afghanistan and killed 1 million people and half the population were refugees. Don’t lecture America on Vietnam.

We happen to have won the Spanish American war, so we gain land. That is how things were done then.

I don’t understand, what was so unique about those actions? There is no holier than thou nation, all are guilty of imperialism ect. I wish someone would look at both sides of the Cold war.

[notyetacommie]

What you describe now is called Law of the Jungle. There has been an attempt to make all the countries live by international lawand, however inefficient the UN was, it still gave the people hope that sooner or later all nations will live abiding this law- you abolished it, restoring the good old jungle law. NOW, FACE THE CONSEQUENCES AND DON"T WHEEP AT ANOTHER 9/11, as you surely deserved it- by the jungle law.

That sounds terrorist, but it is logical. You lay the ground for terrorism yourself - in much the same way other countries do. You seem to fail to understand that- while you are finding fault with other countries' historic policies, your own government is busy waging an unjust, murderous, tricherous war. Will the Japanese set up terrorist attacks on Russia for the land they lost nearly a hundred years ago? Will the Afghans do it for Soviet's fighting the bad guys (whom you had to fight, too- this kind of explains who was right in that conflict) back in the 80s? Will the East Germans do it for the alleged rapings back in the 40s?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Loknar on 6:12 pm on July 7, 2003

Quote: from notyetacommie on 9:09 am on July 7, 2003

Quote: from Loknar on 6:47 am on July 7, 2003



When you look at history on war and war crimes the US has been at the top of the list including the biggest terrorist attacks in the history of the world.


THis is a heavy charge.

On the list of warcrimes Russia and Japan would surpass the US.

I want you to prove this claim.





???? Examples, please. I am particularly interested in the war crimes committed by Russia. What are they? How can they be compared to the many atrocities committed by the USA?



Japanese- Invasion of China, the most famous example would be the Rape of Nanking.

RUssia- They were animals. Rapeing was so common especially in Berlin. Stalin knew what was happening but he did lirttle to stop it.

America never comitted atrosities on such a large scale.


Really well how about the systematic ethnic cleansing of one of the largest countrys in the world. I suppose you happily forgett that the USA is the only nation ever to actually succeed in wiping out an entire culture.

Also Vietnam and the many massacres by American GI's spring to mind. Why do capitalists have such long memorys for Communist massacres, but none for there own crimes? Strange form of amisia???

[CubanFox]

Quote: from Loknar on 7:32 am on July 11, 2003
Yes all true Fox. Yes Panama was too important to allow a rouge CIA agent to handle, besides Americans built the canal. We sure couldn’t allow Grenada to remain commie. There were North Koreans, Russians, Cubans, East Germans ect. What exactly did we do to allow the Grenadine military to massacre them? Did we just say 'go ahead, blast the commies'?


Actually, they were mostly Cuban. http://www.thegrenadarevolutiononline.com/page4.html. And most were construction workers.

And it's not like the people hated Maurice Bishop. When the military forced him into house arrest, a huge civilian mob came and broke him out.

But it's all ok in the name of killing commies, right?

And it doesn't matter that the Americans built the canal. That doesn't justify invading and killing 5,000 civilians.

[Loknar]

Quote: from AK47 on 9:40 am on July 11, 2003

Quote: from Loknar on 6:12 pm on July 7, 2003

Quote: from notyetacommie on 9:09 am on July 7, 2003

Quote: from Loknar on 6:47 am on July 7, 2003



When you look at history on war and war crimes the US has been at the top of the list including the biggest terrorist attacks in the history of the world.


THis is a heavy charge.

On the list of warcrimes Russia and Japan would surpass the US.

I want you to prove this claim.





???? Examples, please. I am particularly interested in the war crimes committed by Russia. What are they? How can they be compared to the many atrocities committed by the USA?



Japanese- Invasion of China, the most famous example would be the Rape of Nanking.

RUssia- They were animals. Rapeing was so common especially in Berlin. Stalin knew what was happening but he did lirttle to stop it.

America never comitted atrosities on such a large scale.


Really well how about the systematic ethnic cleansing of one of the largest countrys in the world. I suppose you happily forgett that the USA is the only nation ever to actually succeed in wiping out an entire culture.

Also Vietnam and the many massacres by American GI's spring to mind. Why do capitalists have such long memorys for Communist massacres, but none for there own crimes? Strange form of amisia???



Hey I do remember them. I point out everyone’s dirty laundry since they do it to America all the time.

And which culture and people are you speaking of? And i we're not the only ones to wipe out an entire culture (If it is indeed true), German colonial authorities at the turn of the last century did just that. The Romans wiped out Carthaginian culture. Many African nations currently are assimilating tribal factions into their own culture. So where did you get the idea that it was America?

[Loknar]

notyetacommie

What I am describing is the way things are/have/will-be done by every nation that has ever existed on this planet. Don’t throw 9-11 at America, what exactly have we done that is so bad to the mid-east besides buy their oil and drill it for them? I have news for you, it was Americans who discovered oil in Saudi Arabia and British who discovered it in Iran. And those nations are rich today because we drill it for them and they sell it.

[Loknar]

Quote: from CubanFox on 10:35 am on July 11, 2003

Quote: from Loknar on 7:32 am on July 11, 2003
Yes all true Fox. Yes Panama was too important to allow a rouge CIA agent to handle, besides Americans built the canal. We sure couldn’t allow Grenada to remain commie. There were North Koreans, Russians, Cubans, East Germans ect. What exactly did we do to allow the Grenadine military to massacre them? Did we just say 'go ahead, blast the commies'?


Actually, they were mostly Cuban. http://www.thegrenadarevolutiononline.com/page4.html. And most were construction workers.

And it's not like the people hated Maurice Bishop. When the military forced him into house arrest, a huge civilian mob came and broke him out.

But it's all ok in the name of killing commies, right?

And it doesn't matter that the Americans built the canal. That doesn't justify invading and killing 5,000 civilians.


No I don’t think it is ok. But why would we allow communism to spread into the Western hemisphere? Don’t even think about throwing Grenada at me when the Russians crushed the Hungarian uprising.

About Panama, why would we allow an unfriendly government-who declared war on us-to control the canal?

Tell me, why were Cubans, Germans, Russians and North Koreans even in Grenada>?

[CubanFox]

Quote: from Loknar on 4:13 pm on July 11, 2003

Tell me, why were Cubans, Germans, Russians and North Koreans even in Grenada>?

To help build an international airport.

[Ghost Writer]

Yeah, yeah, the United States is the biggest terrorist organization in the world. I don't suppose any of you have heard of the SWAPO party. It seems that even in Africa Marxist-Leninism has an ugly face. Why is it that Marxists revile to the most democratic nation on earth, yet totally ignore the mass destruction caused by their proposed system of justice. The truth is that no communist has the right to speak of human rights, when they are the most violent abusers of the people's rights.

Read here (http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Forest/1771/norch06.htm) about the SWAPO Party, which was funded by the Soviet Union.

[Loknar]

Ghost, they'll just bring up the Iran-Contra incident to counter your move. We're in a game of chess. Every bad move America has made they'll bring up, then we counter them by bringing up a bad move they've made.

(Edited by Loknar at 9:08 pm on July 11, 2003)

[Sabocat]

Quote: from Loknar on 11:13 am on July 11, 2003

Quote: from CubanFox on 10:35 am on July 11, 2003

Quote: from Loknar on 7:32 am on July 11, 2003
Yes all true Fox. Yes Panama was too important to allow a rouge CIA agent to handle, besides Americans built the canal. We sure couldn’t allow Grenada to remain commie. There were North Koreans, Russians, Cubans, East Germans ect. What exactly did we do to allow the Grenadine military to massacre them? Did we just say 'go ahead, blast the commies'?


Actually, they were mostly Cuban. http://www.thegrenadarevolutiononline.com/page4.html. And most were construction workers.

And it's not like the people hated Maurice Bishop. When the military forced him into house arrest, a huge civilian mob came and broke him out.

But it's all ok in the name of killing commies, right?

And it doesn't matter that the Americans built the canal. That doesn't justify invading and killing 5,000 civilians.


No I don’t think it is ok. But why would we allow communism to spread into the Western hemisphere? Don’t even think about throwing Grenada at me when the Russians crushed the Hungarian uprising.

About Panama, why would we allow an unfriendly government-who declared war on us-to control the canal?

Tell me, why were Cubans, Germans, Russians and North Koreans even in Grenada>?


Why would we allow communism to spread to the Western Hemisphere? Oh I don't know, maybe because people in their own countries should be able to have self determination without interference by the U$. Tell me why we would need to "stop the spread of communism" in Vietnam when it was estimated that Ho Chi Minh was going to receive 80% of the countries vote? The U$ stopped communism for capitalist self interest only.

When did Panama declare war on the U$? Are you insane? Why should we allow Panama to control the canal? Hmmmm....maybe because it's in Panama, and last time I checked the map, Panama isn't a colony or commonwealth of the United $tates.

[Loknar]

Everything you describe has been done by your glorious Communist's in Russia.

We didn’t allow it to spread because we were opposed to Communism, just like the Russians were opposed to Capitalism.

Why did the Russians have to keep a friendly government in Afghanistan? Hell it doesn’t even share a border with Russia.

Why didn’t they allow the Hungarians to choose for them selves? Last I saw It was Hungarian territory not Russian. (Same question for the East Germans)

We took Panama because the Canal is so vital strategically that we couldn’t allow a hostile to control it (oddly enough China owns the canal today)

Anyway Panama declared war on us.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/pat/panam...anamaus1989.htm (http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/pat/panama/fpanamaus1989.htm)



On December 15, 1989, Noriega sought and was given by the legislature the title of chief executive officer of the government. The Noriega-led assembly declared that a state of war with the United States existed. The next day Panamanian soldiers killed an unarmed U.S. Marine officer dressed in civilian clothes.


They declared war, they took the canal, they killed a marine, they cant get away with that crap.

[Sabocat]

Panama owns the canal. You really ought to check stuff like this before you post.

There was a treaty (Jimmy Carter enacted I believe) that allowed ownership of the canal to go back to the Panamanians.


The Commission

The Panama Canal Commission, a U.S. government agency, will operate the Canal during the 20-year transition period that began with Panama Canal Treaty implementation on October 1, 1979. The Commission is supervised by a nine-member binational board. For the first 10 years, a U.S. citizen served as Chief Executive Officer, under the title of Administrator, and a Panamanian was the Deputy. Effective January 1, 1990, as mandated by the treaty, a Panamanian serves as Administrator and a U.S. citizen is the Deputy.

The Commission replaced the former Panama Canal Company, which, together with the Canal Zone and its government, was disestablished on October 1, 1979. On December 31, 1999, as required by treaty, the United States will transfer the Canal to Panama.

The Commission remains committed to serving world trade with the standards of excellence that have been the tradition of the waterway throughout its history. With prudent investment in maintenance, modernization and training programs, the Canal will remain a viable, economic transportation artery for world trade well into the future.

http://www.orbi.net/pancanal/pcc.htm


Rest assured...the U$ would never allow China to "own" the Panama Canal. Nice try though.

Declaring that a "state" of war exists, is not actually the same thing as declaring war. There are numerous articles and pages written about the U$' CIA interventions in Panama. I would suggest you read "Killing Hope" by William Blum for a complete recounting of the attrocities committed by the U$ against the people of Panama.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Loknar on 4:01 pm on July 11, 2003

Quote: from AK47 on 9:40 am on July 11, 2003

Quote: from Loknar on 6:12 pm on July 7, 2003

Quote: from notyetacommie on 9:09 am on July 7, 2003

Quote: from Loknar on 6:47 am on July 7, 2003



When you look at history on war and war crimes the US has been at the top of the list including the biggest terrorist attacks in the history of the world.


THis is a heavy charge.

On the list of warcrimes Russia and Japan would surpass the US.

I want you to prove this claim.





???? Examples, please. I am particularly interested in the war crimes committed by Russia. What are they? How can they be compared to the many atrocities committed by the USA?



Japanese- Invasion of China, the most famous example would be the Rape of Nanking.

RUssia- They were animals. Rapeing was so common especially in Berlin. Stalin knew what was happening but he did lirttle to stop it.

America never comitted atrosities on such a large scale.


Really well how about the systematic ethnic cleansing of one of the largest countrys in the world. I suppose you happily forgett that the USA is the only nation ever to actually succeed in wiping out an entire culture.

Also Vietnam and the many massacres by American GI's spring to mind. Why do capitalists have such long memorys for Communist massacres, but none for there own crimes? Strange form of amisia???



Hey I do remember them. I point out everyone’s dirty laundry since they do it to America all the time.

And which culture and people are you speaking of? And i we're not the only ones to wipe out an entire culture (If it is indeed true), German colonial authorities at the turn of the last century did just that. The Romans wiped out Carthaginian culture. Many African nations currently are assimilating tribal factions into their own culture. So where did you get the idea that it was America?


Sorry my error, I should not have said cultur, how about race? That better?

Of course not even the americans could possibly take the complete blame for that, the British/spanish were equily to blame in the ultimate destruction of several different sets of people.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Quote: from Loknar on 7:01 am on July 11, 2003
Steve, you see you are very arrogant to think America was the worse ever. Hell the Belgians are worse than us (surely you know of their brutality in Congo) and the French (they nailed people to doors in Algeria), or the Japanese (rape of Nanking) we've never done things like that. The worse we've done was in the Philippines and Japan, we now use precision weaponry thus limiting civilian causalities. South Africa is far from holier than thou

Cassinga Massacre- 700 civilians murdered by the South African army
Angola- Civilian and military deaths total around 500,000


Pretty bloody history for such a holier than thou nation.



Let me teach you something, concerning international policy. Every nation runs this planet the same way, all of them look out for them selves. There is no right and wrong, it is like this: ’ There’s how it is, and how it should be.’


Europe is strong, they dont feel the need to ensure a lawless world so that they can exersize all their will however they wish, South Africa did not see its evil country as just like the others, and therefore go along with it. Do you pledge allegance to ur country? You make justificatrions and excuses for what ur country does, saying its just like everyone else. We resisted our evil government, you exult urs- thats why I say ur the most vile evil country.
You are not like everyone else, we are trying to grow into a world with law, so that evuntualy no atrocities may occur- thru destrying the UN and attempts to destroy the ICC you ensure the lawless strong survive primitive world u endorse. That is evil. As I said the EU is strong, they support international law and respect international conventions. So does South Africa, but more importantly are people see this as important.
And then theres people like you it seems.
Look, Europe is not like u, South Africa is not like u, we are no longer the legacies of our past, because we condem them, you are still the same facist evil empire thats make no appologies. WE ARE NOT LIKE U.


(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 7:59 pm on July 12, 2003)

[Unrelenting Steve]

Quote: from Loknar on 5:45 pm on July 12, 2003
Everything you describe has been done by your glorious Communist's in Russia.

We didn’t allow it to spread because we were opposed to Communism, just like the Russians were opposed to Capitalism.

Why did the Russians have to keep a friendly government in Afghanistan? Hell it doesn’t even share a border with Russia.

Why didn’t they allow the Hungarians to choose for them selves? Last I saw It was Hungarian territory not Russian. (Same question for the East Germans)

We took Panama because the Canal is so vital strategically that we couldn’t allow a hostile to control it (oddly enough China owns the canal today)

Anyway Panama declared war on us.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/pat/panam...anamaus1989.htm (http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/pat/panama/fpanamaus1989.htm)



On December 15, 1989, Noriega sought and was given by the legislature the title of chief executive officer of the government. The Noriega-led assembly declared that a state of war with the United States existed. The next day Panamanian soldiers killed an unarmed U.S. Marine officer dressed in civilian clothes.


They declared war, they took the canal, they killed a marine, they cant get away with that crap.


ur thinking is so egotisticaly centred around America, What happened to right and wrong. The world is not a wressling match, if you think so, go play cops and robbers or play surviour in a jungle. Its about things slightly more important and profound.

[Loknar]

Disgustapated

I've read that a Chinese company actually runs the canal. It could be wrong though.

Either way if they declare that a statre of war exists then we have a clear legality. At the very least a casus belli since they killed a US solider.


(Edited by Loknar at 10:28 pm on July 12, 2003)

[Loknar]

AK47


I think the word you should use is "Tribe", there are still Native (they aren’t natives actually) Americans around. Out Thanksgiving for example was celebrated with an Indian tribe that was eventually enslaved and eventually annihilated.

[Loknar]

Unrelenting Steve

Right and Wrong is something that exists within a nation, however concerning international policy ALL nations loose the ability to distinguish right and wrong. EVERY nation runs this planet the same way, the US is currently good at it, the EU is also good at it.


So since South Africa said "were sorry" that just makes it ok? Great! If AMerica says sorry then by your standards we're in the clear.

[Unrelenting Steve]

no it must be sincere, we ment our apology, we support international law, we suport international morality, as most of Europe does. You dont. that is clear, you have no argument here. Yes there was no international concern for morality centuries ago, but things change. Everyone else does not run the world like America- we did not just apologize we meant it and acted on that sentiment as is evident. That is the diff between u and the rest of the world modern moral world. You profess urselves to be highter than those extreme conservitive facist muslim countries u conquer, but u are just like them.

There is a big diff between u and us other than what u call an "apology". And u know it, im sorry u are so dependant on the understanding that America is great and mighty- instead of just a stupid tough thug. Do u pledge alligence to ur country- cause I think this is where all ur need to vindicate urself and therefore make crap arguments comes from.



(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 9:49 pm on July 13, 2003)

[mentalbunny]

This thread just looks like a long list of tit for tat, the capis saying what "we" did wrong and we saying what "they" did wrong. Why don't we compile a list?

[Unrelenting Steve]

no dont distract Loknar with that, I want him to face my point.

But good idea- but as i have said we are no longer our legacies, as we have apologized for them, and now act for a moral and better world, as where America instead is the still the intrnational facist it always was.

[notyetacommie]

A list of atrocities? I can show you a list of dictators supported (an sometimes even installed) by the USA.
Can you provide anything like that concerning the USSR, Locknar?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_Third.../dictators.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html)

And, by the way, the USSR DID have a common border with Afghanistan. Funnily enough, they fought exactly the same people the USA have to fight right now. Were they wiser or what?

[Loknar]

Quote: from Unrelenting Steve on 10:46 pm on July 13, 2003
no it must be sincere, we ment our apology, we support international law, we suport international morality, as most of Europe does.

O man, I cant believe you. Do you actually think when a nation makes a decision they have in mind the best interests of the entire world rather than them selves?


You dont.

Nobody does. In fact I argue that we've done more for this planet than any other power.


that is clear, you have no argument here. Yes there was no international concern for morality centuries ago, but things change. Everyone else does not run the world like America

Wrong, everything you said here is opposite of the truth. If every country cared so much they why do we fight still? Why are there more slaves today than at any other time in human history? Why is 1/6 of the world living in famine?


- we did not just apologize we meant it and acted on that sentiment as is evident.

Well the US has done much better than South Africa in terms of granting people of different race equal opportunity. And you say 'sorry',, big deal, just because a nation says 'sorry' doesn’t mean they actually are serious.


That is the diff between u and the rest of the world modern moral world. You profess urselves to be highter than those extreme conservitive facist muslim countries u conquer, but u are just like them.

Really? I didn’t France and Germany refusing trade with Saddam Hussein when he was killing his own people. In fact France was getting %50 off the oil they were drilling. Are you telling me that their opposition to this was not because of their economic concerns? Of course it isn’t, because now they want contracts to help rebuild Iraq. So much for Euro morality.


There is a big diff between u and us other than what u call an "apology". And u know it, im sorry u are so dependant on the understanding that America is great and mighty- instead of just a stupid tough thug.

The US fits both descriptions in my opinion.


Do u pledge alligence to ur country- cause I think this is where all ur need to vindicate urself and therefore make crap arguments comes from.


I pledge my allegiance to where I live.

In conclusion I'll let you have the last word since we're going in a circle with this one. I look forward to more arguing in another thread :)

[Loknar]

Quote: from notyetacommie on 11:36 am on July 14, 2003
A list of atrocities? I can show you a list of dictators supported (an sometimes even installed) by the USA.
Can you provide anything like that concerning the USSR, Locknar?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_Third.../dictators.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html)

And, by the way, the USSR DID have a common border with Afghanistan. Funnily enough, they fought exactly the same people the USA have to fight right now. Were they wiser or what?


Adolf Hitler? US companies did do business with them I know. I forgot exactly what happ3ned though; Funny how the list mentions Hitler, when in fact Stalin and Hitler were good friends. Stalin was convinced of that anyway.

And a list of dictators is not an atrocity. Commie China also supported Pol pot. it is why Deng invaded Vietnam (well i9t was A reason).

TO answer your last question. We used the Northern Alliance t do allot of the work. That is how we accomplished our goal of regime change.


http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/ram/russia/findex.htm

[Unrelenting Steve]

O man, I cant believe you. Do you actually think when a nation makes a decision they have in mind the best interests of the entire world rather than them selves?

I didnt say countries dont act for themselves, dont obscure the argument- which is not going in circles, so plz respond with a rebuttle or a "I have changed may way of thinking".

I only said countries simply have to act morally, not to their downfall, but I will concede some countries are based so intirely on hanious deeds that they might tumble if certain amoralities stopped.

South Africa will tax imports so that producers in this country wont be put out of business thru cheaper imports, but we will not put trade embargos on certain countries because they have modus vivendi wioth certain super powers---- u see, its in our interests to be more cosy with America by shuning Cuba- but we dont, thats morals, something that America doesnt have.

The rest of the world does not run themselves like America.

(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 9:42 pm on July 14, 2003)

[Unrelenting Steve]

Well the US has done much better than South Africa in terms of granting people of different race equal opportunity. And you say 'sorry',, big deal, just because a nation says 'sorry' doesn’t mean they actually are serious.


That is an unfounded irrelvevant and bitter statement, we did mean it, otherwise we would be still commiting the same evil things. And while we had aparteid, you basicly had aparteid just it wasnt institutionalized like ours was. BUt nevermind, dont make things up now, you know South Africa is sinciere, Im sorry u dont have a country thats like that.

You say out loud that Amreica will only act in its best interest, then u talk about how u Liberated Iraq, U know that u did that just for ur domestic problems, got nothing to do with morality, if nething its in breech of it and hippocratical. I mean how r u judging, does America has WMD, yes, has it used them, yes. Uve not killed ur own citizens, but u take away their rights, and u imprisoned communists (Amreican Commuists), and the Japanese and now some of the arabs in ur country- where they go without trial; just on ur president's whim. (Facist?) and so who r u to intervine, rather make a world that makes that behaviour illegal- but then u find ursleves strained by the same teather, thats why u are hippocratical amoral bastards.

WE ARE SERIOUS ABOUT OUR APOLOGIES AND U KNOW IT, that was a very feeble rebuttle; doesnt mean their serious- IT IS BLOODY EVIDENT IN OUR LAWS!!!

And as I said before we support international morality; perhaps it is not possible to be totaly moral when in competition with America. Europe gives far more than Amreica, and to the right causes, not just the big flashy ones like AIDS, If America was serious about helping then it would gove out argrculture consessions so that we could compete on ur market (since that basicly all thats produced in Africa)- but no, ull give us AIDS aid, keep us in debt and then profess to be moral. Europe does way more to help, and its not just in token, as they have shown thru their continual help.

Wrong, everything you said here is opposite of the truth. If every country cared so much they why do we fight still? Why are there more slaves today than at any other time in human history? Why is 1/6 of the world living in famine?

Europe helps more with this than u, and still does even without there the GDP ratio. ANd perhaps they could all give more except they do ave to compete with the American economy, Socialism is killed in competition with capitalism if there is a gflobal free market (which their is), so really, we can thank America to add to the problems.

Europe for the most part is very good, but just like communism cant compete with capitalism, morality cant be maintaned when competeing with entities like America, or then Europe would fall and then Africa would really be screwed. Look, yes Europe isnt perfect, but it can easily be traced back to America, but I can still tell u know, they do more, they try, u are just evil and selfish. They arent, thats the diff, thgere is a diff, u can see that in the differances in foregin policy between countries like South Africa and Europe and America.

STOP DENYING THE BLATANT OBVIOUS, there is a big diff between us and America.

[Loknar]

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbo...ields/2062.html (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2062.html)

[Unrelenting Steve]

That was a very small part of my argument. America does give the most but is by far the smallest donar in percent to your GDP, Europe far out ways u.

How much bigger is ur economy than France, and France gives 6,3 billion, and u only give 6,9 billion.

You are refuted by ur own sources.

Everything I have said still stands. But what is more important is not aid, its allowing us into ur marketrs so that we can sustain ourselves. Something America has done nothing to help Africa in. Through trade Europe has also given Africa alot more than u ever will. All that u give is simply token; just so that people like u might have ammunition to try and deny the still blatant obvious.



(Edited by Unrelenting Steve at 8:25 pm on July 15, 2003)