Iranian war

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Tell yourself all the delusional feel good nonsense you like - that's all it is, narcissistic, unempathetic, justification for your countries evils in the name of greed, then pretend it's for the common good.
Mind you, while I don't expect you to change your mind, don't expect me to buy your self serving propaganda.

If a free Panama Canal benefits only the US, then let's have all the rest of the world just stop using it.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Well, probably before it told itself 'Aren't we good', it said 'what sort of story will make us out to be the good guys?"

Certainly I know that if I were greedy, corrupt, and in charge of the U.S., that's what I'd do. Make up a good story, put in place the pieces to make it 'credible' then hammer that 'credible' story to my ignorant subjects in the press.

I think the US should stop defending most of the civilized world. We can limit our defenses to a handful key allies like Poland, Japan, and Israel.

Then if the bad guys want to conquer and enslave all of the rest of the world, we should just let them have it.

0 Replies

@mark noble,

mark noble wrote:

You 'defend' democracy (an 'ideal') by destroying 'threats' (In any and All form/s) that encroach therewith.
Isn't that called 'Dictatorship'?

No.

mark noble wrote:

And why do you defend 'it', please?

I just prefer democracy and civilization over slavery and tyranny.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

We made up dubious claims against an ally who was clearly anti-communist, and the drug charges were at best, ''fake news".

The courts didn't think the charges were fake.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Well said. We can agree on this for sure.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

the working word is "think" they had no evidence in hell other than some dubious claims from actual cartel lords from whom the CIA was ngotiating deals.

Are you even old enough? seems like a lot of your musings are from blogs and not even secondary sources.
Beware the web , its already responsible for a new doofus adaptation in our cranial/cervical structure.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

They should have just told the world "we're going to go kill Saddam so everyone stay out of our way" and left it at that.

That's the same ignorance level as Donald Trump; forewarn what you're going to do before you do it. Give everybody forewarning, so they can hide. Collect millions of illegal immigrants in one sweep? Logistic impossibility. That's the level of Trump's ignorance.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Are you even old enough? seems like a lot of your musings are from blogs and not even secondary sources.

Old enough for what?

What musings are you referring to?

0 Replies

@eurocelticyankee,

eurocelticyankee wrote:

I named you an armchair keyboard warrior which is what you are.

So what would you call somebody without any actual military or combat experience who sits in an armchair at a keyboard and rants about war.

Oh everybody knows what that is, it's called an "oralloy" named after an armchair keyboard warrior.

1 Reply

It really wasn't necessary to kill Saddam...his country was contained, the no-fly zones were working. He didn't have WMD's and the reason he wouldn't admit it was because he knew even the rumor of WMD's was a deterrent to outside aggression. There is no mistake that Saddam was a monster, but that was not a good enough reason to sacrifice all those young lives. All it really did was bolster a twisted notion of machismo that seems to florish in old men.

Cheney and Rumsfeld were never crystal clear about the realities of 'WMD's' because it worked in their favor to allow everyone else's imagination run wild. And it was brilliant, such a great distraction from everything else that was wrong. Yes, there was a real 9/11, but no, Iraq didn't engineer it and there was not going to be a mushroom cloud blossoming in the US.

Trump is reaping the benefits of us being afraid of the dark, we have successfuly installed an ill-tempered moron in the Oval Office all because we were too lazy and complacent to research the issues. All Trump has to do is hump an American Flag and the yokels cheer and jeer (by the way hugging a flag is an incredibly disrespectful act). You would never see anyone in the Armed Forces mishandle the American Flag like that. It's pathetic that Trump is willing to behave like a trained monkey to ingratiate himself to the weak-minded low-rent thrill seekers.

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

It wasn't only Cheney and Rumsfeld. I asked Senator Diane Feinstein to refrain from the war, just on the basis of the US removal of the UN Weapons Inspectors to start their war. She told me, with the "information she had, she had to approve the war." They never found any before or after their war. Ever since then, I never trusted our government. Their false information killed many innocent women, men, and children. I quit writing to our government reps; they don't listen. They think they know it all!

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

If a free Panama Canal benefits only the US, then let's have all the rest of the world just stop using it.

That's just it, the rest of the world would still use it if the Panama Canal were it in the hands of the country of Panama.

There was no good reason for the U.S. occupation of the canal, except that it serves the U.S. economy, power, and influence.

Quote:

Then if the bad guys want to conquer and enslave all of the rest of the world, we should just let them have it.

Are you talking about the countries you invaded - a lot of them stayed, or are still enslaved, under the blessing and support of the U.S. by pro U.S. dictators. For many it may have been one master, or the other. For those that elected their presidents, like Panama - they wouldn't have been enslaved except for the U.S. The fact is, in each of those cases, it benefited the U.S. to invade, or overthrow governments.

That benefit is something I see you have never argued with. I also notice you don't say 'it benefited the world' when you talk comes to the island nations the U.S. invaded, nor the coups it ran in middle and south america. That's because there is only one central theme - all of them benefited the U.S.

Quote:

They should have just told the world "we're going to go kill Saddam so everyone stay out of our way" and left it at that.

That certainly would have been more honest.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr, You need to study the history of the Panama Canal before you talk about US occupation.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Are you talking about Noriega?
Or Torrijos?
Or something else?

Hmmm... a couple of things wrong Smile

Still doesn't change that it wasn't necessary to invade. Perhaps if the canal stopped functioning, and I can't find any mention of that.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

No. It's about how much the US put into the Panama Canal to improve commerce between countries. It benefited everybody, not just the US. It was a time when yellow fever killed thousands in that part of the world. The French started it, and couldn't finish the job. It was not about occupation. My wife and I had the opportunity to cross it when we cruised from Mexico to New Orleans many years ago. I still remember the Gatun Locks. https://fineartamerica.com/featured/gates-at-gatun-locks-panama-canal-john-trax.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvNTfj_aA4wIVD8JkCh2MCg8GEAAYAiAAEgLMkfD_BwE Also, http://panamaforbeginners.com/23-facts-know-panama-canal/

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

You engage in name-calling because you are not capable of refuting anything that I said.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

There is no mistake that Saddam was a monster, but that was not a good enough reason to sacrifice all those young lives.

Those lives were not sacrificed to kill Saddam. They were sacrificed because we stuck around and did nation building.

If we had simply shot Saddam in the head the same day that we captured him, then pulled out and brought everyone home at the end of 2003, we would have lost very few lives.

glitterbag wrote:

hugging a flag is an incredibly disrespectful act

Not compared to the way leftists treat the flag.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

That's just it, the rest of the world would still use it if the Panama Canal were it in the hands of the country of Panama.

Not if they withheld use of the Panama Canal from much of the world.

vikorr wrote:

Are you talking about the countries you invaded

I'm talking about the bad guys who periodically try to take over the world. People like the Nazis or the Soviet Union.

We should sit back and let the next bad guys conquer and enslave most of the world, and only protect the countries who are actually grateful for our protection.

vikorr wrote:

That benefit is something I see you have never argued with. I also notice you don't say 'it benefited the world' when you talk comes to the island nations the U.S. invaded, nor the coups it ran in middle and south america. That's because there is only one central theme - all of them benefited the U.S.

I'm not sure what island nations you are referring to. My lack of addressing "whatever they are" is probably because you listed so many things that I had to stick to the main highlights.

I have said that our coups in Latin America benefited the world.

I was correct to say it. We saved the world from totalitarian Communism.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Not if they withheld use of the Panama Canal from much of the world.

So what if's are your defence now? You have no evidence whatsoever that they did or would. Just supposition. Once again. It's amazing how much of your supposition (also read fairy tales) turn out to support your position.

Quote:

We should sit back and let the next bad guys conquer and enslave most of the world, and only protect the countries who are actually grateful for our protection.

Oh, you mean helping out allies? You mean stepping in (when asked) to help countries who's friendship is vital to U.S. power and influence?

Motives for such aside - one can be grateful for help of a friend, even while being against their bad behaviour (if they engage in such). Friendship and unconditional support do not go hand in hand, and Friendship and criticism aren't opposite spectrums. So being a friend doesn't mean agreeing with everything the other person does , nor even supporting everything the other person does (though apparently you think it does).... being required to only ever support & agree with another is the job of a servant or slave.

Quote:

I'm not sure what island nations you are referring to.

They were in the list I originally provided. I did ask you to go through that list
and apply:
- who invaded
- who suffered
- who benefited
Apparently you didn't.

Quote:

I have said that our coups in Latin America benefited the world.

But not Latin America?

Even so, this should be interesting - how did the Latin American coups benefit the world?

By the way, scattered amongst the many U.S actions(in total, so not just Latin American) are events that did did benefit other countries...just no where near as much as it benefited the U.S...and not always the same countries (though always the U.S.). So the pattern is still clear - as long as the U.S. benefits first and foremost....

As a shot at your use of the phrase 'the world'. The world includes:
- all of africa
- china
- India / Pakistan
- Russia
- Middle East
- and South America
...which together probably constitute, what, 3/5 (and probably similar land area) or some such of the world population, but don't appear to be included in your statement 'the world'.

By world you appear to mean 'American Allies' and closely aligned countries. Even then, they benefit no where near as much as the U.S....such is a side effect of U.S. invasions and coups carried out for the benefit of the U.S.

As I said, you have excellent P.R. people. Your government isn't stupid - it engages in a lot of PR before wars, and it writes it's own history. It manages to fool gullible people like you into repeating their propaganda, and never looking closely at the pattern...just the excuses. And you become so enamoured of the excuses, and so fearful of looking at the pattern, that all you can say is:
- we were saving the world (which is hypothetical, and the aftermath shows this to be wrong anyway)
- 'other people benefited'....

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Never once have you said:
- "We had to make other people suffer'... (which is fact that you did)
- yes we are hypocrites for propping up dictators while professing to protect democracy

Both of these would be honest. We wouldn't necessarily agree, but they would be honest statements. It's something you apparently lack.

Such would also show an understanding and compassion relating to the human cost of your countries actions...but each time you avoid the human cost and focus on your 'justification'...apparently you can't bring yourself to face the human cost, or perhaps you lack in this (understanding and compassion) too.

Such is probably the reasons you believe your propaganda, and never look closely at the patterns.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know