22
   

America Is Becoming Ungovernable.

 
 
Foofie
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 19 Oct, 2013 04:35 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:


Dude, if you are not a historian, you must have a different definition then I do.


In my opinion, he DAZZLES the forum with great depths of historical knowledge. However, in my opinion, such depths of historical knowledge should be left for authors or history professors. Since we are not getting any continuing education credits from his posts, in my opinion, one can prove a point without all the nuanced history. Just my opinion; so I use the word "dazzles."

He seems quite serious most of the time. But, when he related how his platoon, had to stand with rifles over their heads in basic training, I was amused. I suspect he did not intend to amuse anyone, but rather to show how he was less than thrilled with his basic training experience. I was fortunate to have an older silbling in the Korean Conflict that gave me the good advice to join another branch of the military. Some people are so smart, they can outsmart themselves, in my opinion.



JTT
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 19 Oct, 2013 08:13 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
I was fortunate to have an older silbling in the Korean Conflict that gave me the good advice to join another branch of the military.


"Korean Conflict", another euphemism to describe the US's war crimes and terrorist activities against poor countries.

That seems to leave you having taken part in the war crimes of Vietnam, Foofie.
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 19 Oct, 2013 08:15 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:
Even someone as polemic as I recognizes your knowledge of history and would never, unless really, really, REALLY pushed, attempt to argue against it.


What?! You've been subjected to the same US propaganda, ummm, I mean history, McG. You should be able to weave tall tales as well as Setanta.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Oct, 2013 04:14 pm
@JTT,
So, in your opinion North Korea should have been allowed to overrun South Korea and subject it's people to the same horrendous treatment it doles out to its own?

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Oct, 2013 08:58 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Yeah, that's what happened in Vietnam, right, Finn?

The US didn't go into Korea to help the people of Korea anymore than it has gone into any country to help the people of those countries. The sixty years of terrorism against the people of the south and the north is what has caused all these problems.

If the US had kept its greedy rapacious nose out of Korea, Korea would now be a thriving country.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Oct, 2013 03:02 pm
@JTT,
Irrespective of the reasons for US involvement, if they hadn't, the North, backed by the Chinese, would have rolled over the South. There is virtually no sensible reason to believe this would not have happened.

There is, likewise, virtually no reason to believe that if the US had not interceded, Kim Il-sung would have changed his tune once he took control over the combined regions, and therefore your assertion that in the absence of US intervention, Korea would be a thriving country is nonsense.

Instead the case can easily be made that if China had not involved itself in the conflict, the South would have prevailed and then indeed the united regions would now be a thriving Korea.

Conditions in the North are the polar opposite of thriving. Not so in the South.

Your desire to cast each and every action of the US government as horrific and rapacious causes you to repeatedly ignore or twist the facts.

It's not enough for you to argue that the US motivation for interceding in the Korean conflict was less than pristine. You have to insist that it was entirely malignant, and then conjure an absurd alternate history where Kim Il-sung and his degenerate progeny, free of the evil interference of America, would not have committed their numerous and severe crimes against the North Korean people.

And yet the only reason posters in this forum don't take you seriously is because they can't stand the truth? It astounds me that you can believe this.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Oct, 2013 05:31 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Your desire to cast each and every action of the US government as horrific and rapacious causes you to repeatedly ignore or twist the facts.


Who is twisting the facts, Finn?

"Cumings said he was able to draw upon a lot of South Korean research that has come out since the nation democratized in the 1990s about the massacres of Korean civilians."

Why did it take until the 1990s for the South to "democratize"? Read the whole article [at the link] and then get back to me on just who is twisting the facts.

Quote:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-korean-war-the-unknown-war-the-coverup-of-us-war-crimes

The Korean War: The “Unknown War”. The Coverup of US War Crimes
By Sherwood Ross
Global Research, March 16, 2011
16 March 2011


The Korean War, a.k.a. the “Unknown War,” was, in fact, headline news at the time it was being fought(1950-53). Given the Cold War hatreds of the combatants, though, a great deal of the reportage was propaganda, and much of what should have been told was never told. News of the worst atrocities perpetrated against civilians was routinely suppressed and the full story of the horrific suffering of the Korean people—who lost 3-million souls of a total population of 23-million— has yet to be told in full. Filling in many of the blank spaces is Bruce Cumings, chair of the Department of History at the University of Chicago, whose book “The Korean War”(Modern Library Chronicles) takes an objective look at the conflict. In one review, Publishers Weekly says, “In this devastating work he shows how little the U.S. knew about who it was fighting, why it was fighting, and even how it was fighting.

Though the North Koreans had a reputation for viciousness, according to Cumings, U.S. soldiers actually engaged in more civilian massacres. This included dropping over half a million tons of bombs and thousands of tons of napalm, more than was loosed on the entire Pacific theater in World War II, almost indiscriminately. The review goes on to say, “Cumings deftly reveals how Korea was a clear precursor to Vietnam: a divided country, fighting a long anti-colonial war with a committed and underestimated enemy; enter the U.S., efforts go poorly, disillusionment spreads among soldiers, and lies are told at top levels in an attempt to ignore or obfuscate a relentless stream of bad news. For those who like their truth unvarnished, Cumings’s history will be a fresh, welcome take on events that seemed to have long been settled.”

Interviewed in two one-hour installments by Lawrence Velvel, Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, producers of Comcast’s “Books of Our Time” with the first installment being shown on Sunday, March 20th, Cumings said U.S. coverage of the war was badly slanted. Hanson Baldwin, the military correspondent for The New York Times, described “North Koreans as locusts, like Nazis, like vermin, who come shrieking on. I mean, this is really hard stuff to read in an era when you don’t get away with that kind of thinking anymore.” Cumings adds, “Rapes were extremely common. Koreans in the South will still say that that was one of the worst things of the war (was how)many American soldiers were raping Korean women.”

Cumings said he was able to draw upon a lot of South Korean research that has come out since the nation democratized in the 1990s about the massacres of Korean civilians. This has been the subject of painstaking research by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Seoul and Cumings describes the results as “horrific.” Atrocities by “our side, the South Koreans (ran) six to one ahead of the North Koreans in terms of killing civilians, whereas most Americans would think North Koreans would just as soon kill a civilian to look at him.” The numbers of civilians killed in South Korea by the government, Cumings said, even dwarfed Spaniards murdered by dictator Francisco Franco, the general who overthrew the Madrid government in the 1936-1939 civil war. Cumings said about 100,000 South Koreans were killed in political violence between 1945 and 1950 and perhaps as many as 200,000 more were killed during the early months of the war. This compares to about 200,000 civilians put to death in Spain in Franco’s political massacres. In all, Korea suffered 3 million civilian dead during the 1950-53 war, more killed than the 2.7 million Japan suffered during all of World War II.


Quote:
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Oct, 2013 05:34 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
He, she, its attitude is easily explained by the fact she has a hatred of the U S of A and all her citizens. Why on the other hand I couldent say. I dont answer he, she, its posts but keep reading most of them trying to get some reasonable idea of why so much hatred.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Oct, 2013 05:49 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
The sixty years of terrorism against the people of the south and the north is what has caused all these problems.


This, below, after absolutely terrorizing the North in war crimes of unbelievable horror, is not 60 years of US terrorism?


Quote:
While the U.S. today is concerned that North Korea is developing the means to deliver a nuclear weapon, Cummings said the country “has been under nuclear threat since the Korean War. “Our war plans, for decades, called for using nuclear weapons very early in a new war. That’s one reason there hasn’t been a new war,” Cumings said. The armistice that terminated the peninsular war banned the introduction of new and different quality weapons into the region but the U.S. in violation of the pact inserted nuclear-tipped “Honest John” missiles into Korea in 1958. “They said, ‘Well, they’re (always) bringing in new MiGs and everything, so we can do this.’ But to go from conventional weapons to nuclear weapons essentially obliterated the article of the (armistice,) Cumings said. The U.S. has relied so heavily on nuclear deterrent in Korea that one retired general said it has reached a point where “the South Korean army doesn’t think it has to fight in a new war because we’re going to wipe out the North Koreans,” Cumings continued.

Ibid
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Oct, 2013 06:04 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
He, she, its attitude is easily explained by the fact she has a hatred of the U S of A and all her citizens.


More mind numbing delusion, Rabel. If I so hate "all her citizens" why would I have defended Finn and other USians. Following your illogic, I should have jumped in with Farmer and the rest and buried him.

Read the article, Rabel. I didn't do the initial research, but it's all laid out there for you. Does Bruce Cumings, chair of the Department of History at the University of Chicago also hate the US and all her citizens? The US committed heinous war crimes in Korea. Like all other US actions, the crimes have been hidden for years.

It's as plain as the nose on your face, the US has never invaded to help the people of any country. It's always to help the US and the people of whatever country suffer miserably so that your governments can lie to y'all.

Here's another example of US beneficence that you can ignore.

Quote:

The Korean Atrocity: Forgotten US War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
By Yves Engler
Global Research, May 18, 2013

...

At the end of World War II the Soviets occupied the northern part of Korea, which borders Russia. US troops controlled the southern part of the country. A year into the occupation, a cable to Ottawa from Canadian diplomats in Washington, Ralph Collins and Herbert Norman, reported on the private perceptions of US officials: “[There is] no evidence of the three Russian trained Korean divisions which have been reported on various occasions … there seems to be a fair amount of popular support for the Russian authorities in northern Korea, and the Russian accusations against the conservative character of the United States occupation in civilian Korea had a certain amount of justification, although the situation was improving somewhat. There had been a fair amount of repression by the Military Government of left-wing groups, and liberal social legislation had been definitely resisted.”

Noam Chomsky provides a more dramatic description of the situation: “When US forces entered Korea in 1945, they dispersed the local popular government, consisting primarily of antifascists who resisted the Japanese, and inaugurated a brutal repression, using Japanese fascist police and Koreans who had collaborated with them during the Japanese occupation. About 100,000 people were murdered in South Korea prior to what we call the Korean War, including 30-40,000 killed during the suppression of a peasant revolt in one small region, Cheju Island.”


0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Oct, 2013 10:14 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

JPB wrote:

Speaking of media outlets that are owned by folks with wallets. I've been looking at some upcoming covers of various financial and weekly news magazines. Ted Cruz and Paul Rand are being scorned by the right-leaning media. Sarah Palin was given a chance to self-implode on Fox last night, and Matt Lewis (conservative blogger for The Week) took on Marco Rubio.

My position? Anyone who votes to let the US default on it's obligations should never be President.


You must not have voted for Obama then?

I think you figured out Cruz's slogan when he runs for Prez....

Vote for Cruz. He's just like Obama.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Oct, 2013 10:20 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Vote for Cruz. He's just like Obama.

pretty much true.

Quote:
Obama and his tea party adversaries have something important in common — disdain for the practice of politics within the Framers’ institutional architecture. He and they should read Jonathan Rauch’s “Rescuing Compromise” in the current issue of National Affairs quarterly.

“Politicians,” Rauch notes, “like other people, compromise because they have to, not because they want to.” So Madison created a constitutional regime that by its structure created competing power centers and deprived any of them of the power to impose its will on the others.

The Madisonian system, Rauch says, is both intricate and dynamic: “Absent a rare (and usually unsustainable) supermajority, there is simply not much that any single faction, interest, or branch of government can do. Effective action in this system is nothing but a series of forced compromises.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-what-obama-and-the-tea-party-share/2013/10/18/c4243830-376f-11e3-ae46-e4248e75c8ea_story.html

George Will
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Oct, 2013 06:53 am
@hawkeye10,
Oh... you are going to quote some trash from George Will where he claim Obama has never compromised?

I guess that must mean Obamacare is a single payer government program since Obama didn't compromise. Drunk
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Oct, 2013 07:26 am
@parados,
who in your imagination was he compromising with? not a single R voted to approve Obamacare. that is sone very bad policy making right there.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Oct, 2013 09:31 am
@hawkeye10,
Perhaps you should check the actual legislative record hawk instead of relying on the crap that some of the so called "media" spews.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Oct, 2013 10:16 am
@parados,
Quote:
On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against (except for Jim Bunning, who did not vote).[101]

Quote:
The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it

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

where exactly is Wiki wrong?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Oct, 2013 01:00 pm
@hawkeye10,
So, your only standard of compromise is how people vote? That's pretty idiotic.

What if I told you that the GOP proposed amendments and they were actually voted on and added to the bill? Would that be compromise?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Oct, 2013 01:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
By the way Hawk, the ACA is a perfect example of how the Dems compromised several times for the GOP, there are at least 20 instances of GOP suggestions and demands being included, and then the GOP turned around and refused to compromise about anything themselves when they all voted against it on the floor even after voting for it in committee.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Oct, 2013 01:58 pm
@parados,
Obama was warned that creating such a massive entitlement without bipartisan support would be an act of placing this nation at great risk of sustained political warfare. as someone pointed out here on A2K not long ago this is looking more and more like the vicious uncompromising political warfare that preceded the civil war. At root it is Obama's recklessness in pursuit of his will that is responsible for what we have seen over the last 30 days. refusing to negotiate with the opposition over government finances is more of this same recklessness, and it will drive this nation into depression if it continues, as the chances of making it to the next president without economic collapse are slim.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Oct, 2013 02:09 pm
@hawkeye10,
There you go again. Inserting your own reality as if it was what has actually happened in the real world.

When only one side gives and the other takes but never gives it isn't negotiation or compromise and you certainly can't accuse the side that DID give of not compromising or refusing to negotiate.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 01:06:16