|
MrRodgers -> RE: Collateral murder (2/18/2013 12:17:40 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tuub
And how is that, the US kills thousends of innocent muslims, just like the Nazi's did with Jews... only difference is that the US doesn't has gaschambers... but they've got their drones and guantanamo bay.
US supports terrorism like no other country does so yes it is terrorist nation no.1
The world is also waiting for the US to make its foolish mistake of war... possibly with Iran.
Believe me, if the U.S. was really as bad as you say they are, then there would be no Iran today. The country would not exist; it would be an uninhabitable wasteland.
A lot of Americans complain that our government is too nice to the rest of the world. If we really wanted to be "terrorist nation number 1," then we would have conquered the whole world by now (or at least wiped out billions in the attempt).
Since that has not happened, then we can see that your analysis is wildly off-base.
Two things. The US would never trash Iran, it is far too profitable. The US will not nuke that oil. Far too many in the US think our military is the answer to all of our otherwise unsolvable international problems.
Well, then, maybe you should tell that to Tuub, since he's the one saying that the U.S. will go to war against Iran. All through this and other threads, I keep seeing non-Americans go on and on about the so-called "aggression" of the U.S. military, but I just don't see that as being the case.
I don't think our military is the answer to all of our problems. Some in the U.S. might believe that, but the real trouble comes from those in our government and media who decide what our "international problems" truly are. Once it has been decided that "there is a problem," then the next step is to figure out how to solve that problem, which is where the divisions between the hawks and doves come into play.
quote:
Plus it seems you are equating our ability to conquer the world with are refusal to do so as the prime example of our peaceful intentions. America outsources and off-shores its support for black ops.
Our intentions were to maintain the status quo after World War II. That doesn't necessarily imply that our intentions were peaceful, but that we were operating responsibly within the scope of our alliances and international treaties. We were not going to engage in aggressive or expansionist warfare because we signed a treaty pledging that we wouldn't. Our stated policy was one of containment, in which we pledged to defend the non-communist world from communist expansion. Our foreign policy, military activities, black ops, and even domestic policy were all geared towards and focused on our government's somewhat zealous anti-communist philosophy.
Unfortunately, maintaining the status quo after World War II proved to be difficult with the colonial powers waning and leaving a power vacuum in the world which the Soviets were more than eager to fill. It wasn't as if America invented this whole situation as an excuse to go around and covertly conquer the world. The Soviets were doing shit, too. Perhaps some policymakers felt we needed our own "KGB" to combat the Soviet KGB, along with massive arms and missile build-ups.
I suppose it's a deeper philosophical question as to whether a nation should adopt the tactics of its enemies and "cross the line" when it comes to national security and defense. Some might argue that the "black ops" and wars by proxy were necessary to continue to safeguard U.S. security without having to resort to all-out war with the Soviet Bloc, which could have meant total annihilation of the planet.
quote:
We have in the US govt. a $50 billion a year behemoth of an institution that exists as a whole separate world unaccountable to anybody, operating in the interests it chooses and most of it completely undercover. It recognizes only its own limits if any and will remain so...gathering even more power.
That behemoth exists because our policies shifted from isolationism to interventionism which created the need for it. We have maintained an interventionist foreign policy ever since World War II. The behemoth exists as long as both parties continue to support that interventionist foreign policy (no matter how hawkish or dovish the politicians purport to be).
As far as them being "unaccountable," I guess it would depend on just how corrupted our system has become. I wouldn't deny that our system has become rife with corruption, greed, bribery, and other dishonorable activities, not to mention the widespread stupidity and incompetence within our government (to include state and local governments as well). I suppose the people could make them accountable if they really tried, but from what I can see, the people don't really want to try very hard. So, therein lies the problem.
Since the 50's the world in general and the Muslim in particular, knew what was up when the CIA brought down both the democratically elected govts. of Iran and Iraq. From those operations on, for anybody to believe that the US was strictly a benign power had to be smoking or eating...the good stuff.
The behemoth allegedly without JFK or RFK's knowledge went so far as to take out the duly elected govt. of S. Vietnam to suit our war ends.
It is this that continues unabated, unchallenged and unaccountable to anyone or any institution. It is [them] that will have us the people doing their bidding because of their lies and corruption. The US needed a reason not to disarm after the cold war, [it] has one now ...always, our enemies that are now everywhere and always...undefeatable.
|
|
|
|
