11
   

Chávez Dies, Leaving Venezuela a Divided Nation

 
 
JTT
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 05:41 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
You are comparing the Shah of Iran to OBL?


I'm not sure where I did that but you can avoid it like you avoid everything else. But OBL was the creation of the USA.

Quote:
Considering the amount of terrorism that came out of Iran after the Shah was removed I laugh at your comparison. Iran is one of the original founders of modern day terrorism.


You laugh because you don't know what else to do. Again, your ignorance of history leaps to the fore.

Quote:

Backyard terrorism
The US has been training terrorists at a camp in Georgia for years - and it's still at it

George Monbiot
The Guardian, Tuesday 30 October 2001

"If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents," George Bush announced on the day he began bombing Afghanistan, "they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril." I'm glad he said "any government", as there's one which, though it has yet to be identified as a sponsor of terrorism, requires his urgent attention.

For the past 55 years it has been running a terrorist training camp, whose victims massively outnumber the people killed by the attack on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid, rightly or wrongly, at al-Qaida's door.

The camp is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or Whisc. It is based in Fort Benning, Georgia, and it is funded by Mr Bush's government.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/30/afghanistan.terrorism19



Quote:
You are only hot on the tail of the US because we are the biggest target around.


The biggest target meaning that the US is by far the biggest terrorist organization in the world, the most prolific in terms of war crimes, the greediest set of predators, the list goes on.

Quote:
When was the last time you looked into the treatment the Chinese provide to the nations it has invaded and taken over on its rise to power. Taiwan ,Nepal or Tibet


Taiwan??? Taiwan is a separate country. That leaves two. Would you like to see the list of some 200 countries the US has illegally invaded since its inception. Just consider the land that the US stole from Mexico.

Quote:
You do a survey around the world and the US is still the #1 destination for people seeking a better life and freedom.


The US is one of many many countries where it's perfectly natural for anyone, ANYONE who wants a better life to try to get to. That has nothing to do with the important things you have ignored, like the fact that the US illegally invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, not to help the people in any fashion, but to do what the US has always done, either steal the wealth directly or position things for US businesses to steal the wealth.

Quote:
I guess this will be my last reply to you on this thread.


Surprise, surprise, Baldimo. You can't, like so many of your compatriots, face up to the truth.

Quote:
I'm willing to bet the the world is mostly better off with us then without us.


Tell that to the 10 million people and counting that the US has murdered, just to steal their wealth. That doesn't even take into consideration the tens or hundreds of millions who have had their lives destroyed by these illegal invasions, the support given to brutal dictators, the very food stolen from their tables to feed US fat cats.

Doesn't that make you ashamed?
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 10:59 pm
@JTT,
Nope not ashamed at all. I'm proud to be an American. Where do you reside JTT?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Mar, 2013 11:46 pm
@Baldimo,
Are you proud of what your governments are? Are you proud that you have been lied to your whole life, that the US is no where near the good guy that they are constantly made out to be?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 01:03 am
@Baldimo,
I've had JTT on ignore for a few years, so I've seen only one side of this dialogue. However, I know JTT to be a virulent hater of this his country. He interprets the success of our country to be the exclusive result of the deliberate exploitation of others, and all of our efforts during the Cold War to be exclusively motivated by the desire to exploit others, without any regard for the actions of the former USSR, China, or the Soviet bloc states which had imprisoned half the world in an authoritarian socialist system that delivered only drab poverty and the loss of freedom to the people it oppressed.

The motivations of all people and states are a mixed bag of strategy and self interest. However In JTT's twisted world our motives were only self interest, while those of our foes were always pure and devoid of any bad intent. He is a bitter and angry one note troll in the fullest sense of the word.

There's not much point in a dialogue with him. After one or two diatribes against the country, and being repeatedly called a war criminal for my service as a Naval Aviator, I decided I had heard all he had to offer, and that it wasn't worth much. I put him on ignore, and haven't thought about him since. I believe that was a wise choice. He's really an obnoxious and embittered little creep, and not worth your attention. The good news is that you will quickly forget him, while he will likely be an angry little asshole for the rest of his life.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 01:25 am
@georgeob1,
He a friend of yours?


Sounds like you know him real good, anyhow.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 01:49 am
thing is, georgeob, leaving aside the personal characteristics JTT displays here, which I tend to agree with you on, what he says about American history is in fact in large part true, if not necessarily for the motives he describes. We do have an ignobel history of running over people and taking their lands, from the Indians to the Mexican War, to the Spanish=American War (the Phillipines and Cuba), to the Latin American adventures (United Fruit essentially ran Guatemala, to CIA-backed overthrows of regimes with policies we opposed (which often became generally accepted standards as colonialism withered), like Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Pinochet in Chile. Those misadventures came back to haunt us decades later, because the people of those coyuntries didn't forget them. In the Cold War, we tended to back anyone who said they were anticommunist, which meant we supported a whole lot of very scuzzy authoritarians, often murderers, like Rios Montt in Guatemala, responsible for the Maya genocides of the 80s. Look at Eisenhower's proud backing of the authoritarians who dismantled the accords which ended the French domination of Vietnam, which led directly to our involvement in the war our leaders knew we wouldn't win. Look at Vietnam today, whose leaders have officially been our friends for several decades, tho they're the same people who were officially our enemies. Look at Nixon's destablization of Sihanouk in Cambodia, because he was too neutral for Tricky Dick. Which led directly to the Khmer Rouge bloodbath--Sihanouk kad kept them in check and on the fringe for decades.

JTT definitely has a point. We've been in bed with a whole lot of truly awful people for a whole lot of our history, and there've been a whole lot of times when we've seen foreigners as income opportunies rather than other people.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 02:09 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
and being repeatedly called a war criminal for my service as a Naval Aviator,


While it can be argued that you served your country well, Gob, the same can be said for many of the SS officers who served under Himmler.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 02:11 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
The motivations of all people and states are a mixed bag of strategy and self interest.


"We are carefully taught, we teach ourselves that we are a peace loving people but if you read our own history, just in a cursory way, you note that in fact we are a very warlike country.

Over 200 times we have put our forces into other countries to force them to our will. We've been in the business of being a country for about 200 years. We've spent fifty years at war, we've fought fifteen major wars, the average amount of time between one war and the next is ten years."

John Stockwell

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 02:15 pm
@MontereyJack,
You see, MJ, it doesn't take much honesty to stop the lies dead in their tracks.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 02:24 pm
@Baldimo,
I noticed that you ignored this, Baldimo.

Quote:
Baldimo: When I was deployed to Afghanistan I was stationed at a FOB for a few weeks.

jtt: You took part in the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. That is the ultimate war crime.


Then you ignored the proof.

You also ignored everything else that illustrates that your long held cherished beliefs in the goodness of the USA are badly, and sadly misplaced.

But take some comfort in GeorgeOB1's propaganda. He's a great one to believe. He can describe to you, in exquisite detail, what the sand is like just below the surface.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 02:36 pm
@MontereyJack,
You are in large part right, but to be fair we, the US havent done anything that other countries such as England, France, Spain, China, Russia, and Rome have. So why dosent the ass jump them? Because he has a bias that negates everything he posts even when he is right. I decided long ago not to answer him as I have some other individuals who are too brain dead to recognize a fact when they see it. But I still scan most posts untill I realize they are just more propaganda.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 02:43 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
the US havent done anything that other countries such as England, France, Spain, China, Russia, and Rome have.


Over 200 times we [the USA] have put our forces into other countries to force them to our will. We've been in the business of being a country for about 200 years. We've spent fifty years at war, - John Stockwell

Rome???!!! I say that we should bring Rome up before the ICJ right now!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 02:53 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
But I still scan most posts untill I realize they are just more propaganda.


It's easy to show propaganda for what it is, Rabel. I do that all the time with the propaganda that flows from US media sources/US government officials/A2Kers/... .

What is it that prevents you from doing the same?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 03:03 pm
@MontereyJack,
I believe your understanding of history, particularly the relative significance of its main events is seriously deficient.

The United States wasn't responsible for the backward and authoritarian rule that pervaded the former Spanish colonies of Central America. Our trade with them benefitted the local populations, even despite our efforts to control production and trade. That we acted to support authoritarian regimes that were friendly to us, as opposed to equally authoritarian ones who opposed us, is hardly a moral crime in the real world.

At the end of WWII we were confronted with an expanding Soviet empire attempting to impose hateful oppression wherever it could, and the simultaneous collapse of the former British and French empires - a fairly complex and challenging combination by historical standards. At the time nearly the whole Islamic world was just emerging from a century of European misrule - from Morrocco to Uzbeckistan to Indonesia. These were three distinct but pervasive and deep underlying trends that dominated the five or six decades that followed WWII, and their cross currents created many complexities and hard choices for the world and the leading powers in it. Though many of the events may seemed to you to have involved simple binary moral choices, they surely did not do so in fact.

The War in Vietnam actually started in 1946 when the French returned and the occupying Japanese army was evacuated. Ho Chi Minh was then a recognized leader of Vietnamese nationalists (indeed he represented them in the negotiations in Paris in 1919 for the Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI). France was determined to reestablish its colonial rule and the U.S. was concerned about the political stability of France vis a vis the USSR - a non simple combination. During the colonial war that finally led to the French withdrawl, France actually requested the the U.S. use nuclear weapons to break the seige of their forces at Dienbenphu - a request we denied. The division of the country in the Geneva negotiations that followed was quickly violated by the new North Vietnam, and we became heavily involved in an effort to halt the spread of Soviet Communism in what history later revealed was really a nationalistic war. We were wrong in that decision, however that error was not easily seen then. We did not seek any material benefits for ourselves in any part of that conflict. It was already a bloody affair without our involvement. As it turns out the Vietnamese were equally worried about European or American dominationa as they were worried about domination by the Chinese.

The United States did not either create or inspire the Kmehr Rouge; and it was a socialist, not a capitalist, "paradise" they were trying to create in Cambodia. Their "elimination of the irreconcilables" (Lenin's phrase) was a bit more bloody than the ones occurred in Russia or China, but it was very much the same in terms of methods and motives.

One could go on, but you have enough here to think about and put in a more realistic context than you have done above.



JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 03:30 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I believe your understanding of history, particularly the relative significance of its main events is seriously deficient.


Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Quote:
The United States wasn't responsible for the backward and authoritarian rule that pervaded the former Spanish colonies of Central America.


Over 200 times we have put our forces into other countries to force them to our will.- John Stockwell

Quote:
Our trade with them benefitted the local populations, even despite our efforts to control production and trade.


Quote:
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler



Quote:
That we acted to support authoritarian regimes that were friendly to us, as opposed to equally authoritarian ones who opposed us, is hardly a moral crime in the real world.


Quote:
I went from ... a tour in Washington to Vietnam. And there, my career, and my life, began to get a little bit more serious. They assigned me a country. It was during the cease-fire, '73 to '75. There was no cease-fire. Young men were being slaughtered. I saw a slaughter. 300 young men that the South Vietnamese army ambushed. Their bodies brought in and laid out in a lot next to my compound. I was up-country in Tayninh. They were laid out next door, until the families could come and claim them and take them away for burial.

I thought about this. I had to work with the sadistic police chief. When I reported that he liked to carve people with knives in the CIA safe-house - when I reported this to my bosses, they said, `(1). The post was too important to close down. (2). They weren't going to get the man transferred or fired because that would make problems, political problems, and he was very good at working with us in the operations he worked on. (3). Therefore if I didn't have the stomach for the job, that they could transfer me.'

But they hastened to point out, if I did demonstrate a lack of `moral fiber' to handle working with the sadistic police chief, that I wouldn't get another good job in the CIA, it would be a mark against
my career.

So I kept the job, I closed the safe-house down, I told my staff that I didn't approve of that kind of activity, and I proceeded to work with him for the next 2 years, pretending that I had reformed him, and he didn't do this sort of thing anymore. The parallel is obvious with El Salvador today, where the CIA, the state department, works with the death squads.

They don't meet the death squads on the streets where they're actually chopping up people or laying them down on the street and running trucks over their heads. The CIA people in San Salvador meet the police chiefs, and the people who run the death squads, and they do liaise with them, they meet them beside the swimming pool of the villas. And it's a sophisticated, civilized kind of relationship. And they talk about their children, who are going to school at UCLA or Harvard and other schools, and they don't talk about the horrors of what's being done. They pretend like it isn't true.

What I ran into in addition to that was a corruption in the CIA and the intelligence business that made me question very seriously what it was all about, including what I was doing ... risking my life ... what I found was that the CIA, us, the case officers, were not permitted to report about the corruption in the South Vietnamese army....

Now, the corruption was so bad, that the S. Vietnamese army was a skeleton army. Colonels would let the troops go home if they would come in once a month and sign the pay vouchers so the colonel could pocket the money. Then he could sell half of the uniforms and boots and M-16's to the communist forces - that was their major supply, just as it is in El Salvador today. He could use half of the trucks to haul produce, half of the helicopters to haul heroin.

And the Army couldn't fight. And we lived with it, and we saw it, and there was no doubt - everybody talked about it openly. We could provide all kinds of proof, and they wouldn't let us report it. Now this was a serious problem because the south was attacked in the winter of 1975, and it collapsed like a big vase hit by a sledgehammer. And the U.S. was humiliated, and that was the dramatic end of our long involvement in Vietnam....

I had been designated as the task-force commander that would run this secret war [in Angola in 1975 and 1976].... and what I figured out was that in this job, I would sit on a sub-committee of the National Security Council, this office that Larry Devlin has told me about where they had access to all the information about Angola, about the whole world, and I would finally understand national security. And I couldn't resist the opportunity to know. I knew the CIA was not a worthwhile organization, I had learned that the hard way. But the question was where did the U.S. government fit into this thing, and I had a chance to see for myself in the next big secret war....

I wanted to know if wise men were making difficult decisions based on truly important, threatening information, threatening to our national security interests. If that had been the case, I still planned to get out of the CIA, but I would know that the system, the invisible government, our national security complex, was in fact justified and worth while. And so I took the job.... Suffice it to say I wouldn't be standing in front of you tonight if I had found these wise men making these tough decisions. What I found, quite frankly, was fat old men sleeping through sub-committee meetings of the NSC in which we were making decisions that were killing people in Africa. I mean literally. Senior ambassador Ed Mulcahy... would go to sleep in nearly every one of these meetings....

You can change the names in my book [about Angola] [13] and you've got Nicaragua.... the basic structure, all the way through including the mining of harbors, we addressed all of these issues. The point is that the U.S. led the way at every step of the escalation of the fighting. We said it was the Soviets and the Cubans that were doing it. It was the U.S. that was escalating the fighting. There would have been no war if we hadn't gone in first. We put arms in, they put arms in. We put advisors in, they answered with advisors. We put in Zairian para-commando battalions, they put in Cuban army troops. We brought in the S. African army, they brought in the Cuban army. And
they pushed us away. They blew us away because we were lying, we were covering ourselves with lies, and they were telling the truth. And it was not a war that we could fight. We didn't have interests there that should have been defended that way.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_1.html


Quote:
The War in Vietnam actually started in 1946


Quote:
U.S. intelligence officers worked over Vietnam for a total of 25 years, with greater and greater involvement, massive propaganda, deceiving the American people about what was happening. Panicking people in Vietnam to create migrations to the south so they could photograph it and show how people were fleeing communism. And on and on, until they got us into the Vietnam war, and 2,000,000 people were killed.

Ibid.


Quote:
The United States did not either create or inspire the Kmehr Rouge;


Gob is starting to hyperventilate.

Quote:
The Long Secret Alliance:
Uncle Sam and Pol Pot

by John Pilger

Covert Action Quarterly Fall 1997





The US not only helped create conditions that brought Cambodia's Khmer Rouge to power in 1975, but actively supported the genocidal force, politically and financially. By January 1980, the US was secretly funding Pol Pots exiled forces on the Thai border. The extent of this support-$85 million from 1980 to 1986-was revealed six years later in correspondence between congressional lawyer Jonathan Winer, then counsel to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation. Winer said the information had come from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). When copies of his letter were circulated, the Reagan administration was furious. Then, without adequately explaining why, Winer repudiated the statistics, while not disputing that they had come from the CRS. In a second letter to Noam Chomsky, however, Winer repeated the original charge, which, he confirmed to me, was "absolutely correct.''

Washington also backed the Khmer Rouge through the United Nations, which provided Pol Pot's vehicle of return. Although the Khmer Rouge government ceased to exist in January 1979, when the Vietnamese army drove it out, its representatives continued to occupy Cambodia's UN seat. Their right to do so was defended and promoted by Washington as an extension of the Cold War, as a mechanism for US revenge on Vietnam, and as part of its new alliance with China (Pol Pot's principal underwriter and Vietnam's ancient foe). In 1981, President Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said, "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot." The US, he added, "winked publicly" as China sent arms to the Khmer Rouge through Thailand.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/UncleSam_PolPot.html


Could someone repost this information for Gob1?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 03:41 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
But I still scan most posts untill I realize they are just more propaganda.


What do you think of Gob1's post, Rabel?

http://able2know.org/topic/209780-4#post-5275003

Do you think that it's an honest assessment or propaganda?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 04:22 pm
@MontereyJack,
Even assuming all this is true, which I don't for a minute believe, what is it's import?

It's the way of the world.

The US hardly has a blemish free history, but what nation does?

The reign of the Khmer Rouge is an abhorrent stain on Cambodia and humanity, but it defines neither. Germany is not the Holocaust, China is not the atrocities of Mao, and America is not slavery and the near extermination of Indians.

Should Americans be aware of their entire history? Absolutely, but I fail to see any benefit from focusing ( and inflating) soley on the dark chapters as folks like JTT do.

So I return to my original question, let's say he is 100% accurate about our history, what should we do? Commit mass suicide?

You are by no means the first person in this forum to post something to the effect of "Say what you want about JTT, but he's "generally" right about America." you are also not the first person to post such a comment and then fail to explain it's relevance.

If the anti-JTT was an A2K member and constantly and without pause wrote posts that not only focused solely on the good things of which America can be proud, but insulted in the most vile of ways anyone who disagreed, would you be so quick to post "Say what you want about Anti-JTT, but he's "generally" right about America."

Somehow I don't think so.




JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 04:50 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
The only thing relevant in your post, Finn, is that you don't seem to know the difference between it's and its. Smile

Instead of your devious, but oh so transparent tangents, why didn't you focus on Gob1's lies?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Mar, 2013 05:00 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
So I return to my original question, let's say he is 100% accurate about our history, what should we do? Commit mass suicide?


I'm pretty sure that I'd yell for everyone to stop after your lead, Finn. Smile

Considering that the US purports to be a rule of law country, why not start with charging those that have, at the least, broken US law. With appropriate sentencing, that would get most of your ex-presidents and their minions, life sentences. Just think of the savings to the US treasury when they all had to forfeit their pensions.

Now consider all the defense contractors and the like who could be charged with racketeering. Not only would there be hefty fines, but all the profits could be taken as profits from crime.

It's a win win.

And the best thing of all, the US could regain its shining city on a hill rep. And, a tiny thing I know but you wouldn't have to lie your ass off all the time.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Mar, 2013 10:43 am
@JTT,
I'm proud to be an American JTT. I love my country but I don't 100% trust my govt. Round up our former Presidents and charge them with crimes? You must be joking right? Let me know how your little revolution goes. Just be careful not to knock on my door, you won't like what I answer the door with.

It is good to know that you take full advantage of your 1st Amendment.

 

Related Topics

Hugo Chavez is Dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
After Hugo Chavez -? - Discussion by edgarblythe
Hugo Chavez: Comrade Bush, how are you? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Amazing! Chavez' speech at the UN (full transcript) - Discussion by Solve et Coagula
Venezuela Watch - Discussion by blatham
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.49 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 11:08:08