First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Deutscher Herbst
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/10/09 , edited 11/10/09

DomFortress wrote:

You mean all this time, you yourself don't even know? Whereas I OTOH already had a clear idea just what terrorism is.

My definition of terrorism is an act of complete ignorance of any official channel of communication. That's why I used the infamous Iron Curtain as a physical symbolical representation of both the form and ideology that's terrorism.


My definition of terrorism is an act of complete ignorance of any official channel of communication??

So if Al-Qaeda announced it was going to attack a couple days beforehand, 9/11 wouldn't be a terrorist act?

Where did you get this definition from? We can't go around completely redefining words, the English language is pretty clear. Even in a political context, that definition is completely inaccurate.
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
65 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 11/10/09

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

You mean all this time, you yourself don't even know? Whereas I OTOH already had a clear idea just what terrorism is.

My definition of terrorism is an act of complete ignorance of any official channel of communication. That's why I used the infamous Iron Curtain as a physical symbolical representation of both the form and ideology that's terrorism.


My definition of terrorism is an act of complete ignorance of any official channel of communication??

So if Al-Qaeda announced it was going to attack a couple days beforehand, 9/11 wouldn't be a terrorist act?

Where did you get this definition from? We can't go around completely redefining words, the English language is pretty clear. Even in a political context, that definition is completely inaccurate.


Out of curiosity: has US ever officially declared war against Vietnam?
Posted 11/10/09

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

You mean all this time, you yourself don't even know? Whereas I OTOH already had a clear idea just what terrorism is.

My definition of terrorism is an act of complete ignorance of any official channel of communication. That's why I used the infamous Iron Curtain as a physical symbolical representation of both the form and ideology that's terrorism.


My definition of terrorism is an act of complete ignorance of any official channel of communication??

So if Al-Qaeda announced it was going to attack a couple days beforehand, 9/11 wouldn't be a terrorist act?

Where did you get this definition from?

I'm saying if Al-Qaeda wanted to talk in the first place, they would've made their official declaration. Instead of them just killed as many innocent people as they could, and then claimed that why they did it is for so-and-so.

Or are you telling me assassination, manslaughter, suicide bomb, kidnapping, or just about any other act that violates an individual's right and freedom to live and travel, is acceptable demand for a negotiation?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/10/09 , edited 11/10/09

blancer wrote:

Out of curiosity: has US ever officially declared war against Vietnam?


I have no idea.



DomFortress wrote:

I'm saying if Al-Qaeda wanted to talk in the first place, they would've made their official declaration. Instead of them just killed as many innocent people as they could, and then claimed that why they did it is for so-and-so.

Or are you telling me assassination, manslaughter, suicide bomb, kidnapping, or just about any other act that violates an individual's right and freedom to live and travel, is acceptable demand for a negotiation?


What does it matter if negotiation is acceptable or not? We're talking about the definition of terrorism..
Posted 11/10/09
to Yei the defention of terrorism is to terrorize or cause fear in people so much that they are afraid to live their lives and even make simple every day choices.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/10/09

Yei wrote:


I don't think we're only supposed to consider what a country does to it's own citizens when deciding if it's a terrorist state or not. US foreign affairs since WW2 and today clearly make it a terrorist state. I'm sure Canada has committed terrorism in Afghanistan, or other foreign affairs in the past, but it's nothing compared to the US.

I don't think there's any other way to put it than how Chomsky puts it, it's pretty straight forward.


You’re right; we’re not supposed to only consider how a country treats its own people, but I was taking into account our foreign affairs and I do not think that it makes us a terrorist state at all. I mean, we don’t really need to use intimidation and fear to control people. We’ve got money for that. For example: if we were a terrorist state then we would blow up abortion clinics in nations that we don’t want to provide their populations with abortions. Yet, we don’t do this. We simply withhold funding and foreign aid going to facilities that advocate or offer abortion related services. This is what we call the International Gag Rule. It’s certainly hypocritical, but not terroristic.

Perhaps a better way to demonstrate this would be to look at our history with Iran. It actually began with Iranian people’s irritation with a large British oil company in Iran. Whenever Mohammad Mossadegh was elected Prime Minister in 1951 he promptly took control of the oil company as a part of his nationalist agenda. The British got upset but Mossadegh told them to back off. The United Kingdom turned to United States for help. What followed was the usurping of a democratically elected official and his replacement with a pro-western Shah. Now, this is certainly reprehensible behavior. It essentially amounted to sacrificing our value of democracy for oil money. Yet, it was not terroristic. Look up Operation Ajax. We didn’t need to use terror or intimidation to get what we wanted. Instead we called upon propaganda and bribery to achieve our goal, and it worked for quite some time.

In addition it should be noted that when anti-government riots shook Iran in 1978 Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi turned to the United States and requested permission to “draw a hard line,’ with the protestors. He expressed his frustration when we refused to concede and instead told him to demonstrate that he had control of the situation but to also make concessions to the will of his people and to take humanitarian steps. In fact, the United States (under Jimmy Carter,) was taking steps towards re-introducing a democratic system. They were simply afraid that if the Shah were to fall out of power it would lead to a violent conflict.

Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, US National Security Advisor stated “We were concerned that if shah falls the whole thing could become completely unstable, not just in Iran but the region.”

Now, that made at first glance seem like a hollow justification for our actions. Maybe it was, but I’m not convinced of this. Consider that we were right and that immediately following Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s seizure of control violence in the region DID break out in the form of an Iran-Iraq War that culminated in violations of human right and international law from both sides.

Now, I cannot say that I am proud of my government’s support of Saddam during this conflict, but given the circumstances I would argue that this was neither terroristic nor beyond understanding. The fact was that as compared to Khomeini, Sadam was the lesser of two evils. We weren’t the only ones who felt this. Everybody was afraid of what Ruhollah Khomeini would do if he won the Iran-Iraq War and everybody wanted him out of power. In fact, during the Iran Iraq War Saddam received funding and support from France and various other European countries as well as the Arab/Muslim world and the USSR.

As Efraim put it:


The USSR and France armed Iraq to its teeth, while the USA provided vital intelligence support and economic aid; numerous European companies were building Iraq's arsenal of non-conventional weapons, the Arab Gulf monarchies were financing the Iraqi war effort, and a million Egyptian workers were servicing the overextended Iraqi economy


You see, at this time Iran was a great threat to international peace and human rights than Iraq. They were hard at work establishing radically anti-western terrorist cells such as Hezbollah in Lebanon. In 1983 Iran and Hezbollah massacred 243 UN Peace Keeping troops sent from the United States. They then murdered an additional 53 French soldiers sent as a part of the same international peace keeping force.

In the end we were forced to make a decision between one evil or the other. We did what everybody else did; we sided with what at that time appeared to be the lesser evil. This was certainly a mistake but we could not have been expected to predict the future. Nobody, not France and the European contributors, not the United States, not the Arab monarchies, and not even the USSR would’ve supported Sadam if we had known what he had in store. Our intentions were never to terrorize the Iraqi people. They were to destroy the man terrorizing the Iranians and Israelis. They were to free some forty American civilians abducted and taken hostage by Iran, including but not at all limited to: Terry Anderson, Thomas Sutherland, David Jacobsen, Benjamin Weir, Terry Waite, Michael Seurat, and John McCarthy.

Again, we’ve done a lot of things I don’t agree with but have we been terroristic? I don’t think so at all. Actually, I think that our foreign policy has contributed to peace in more cases than not. For example, Egypt agreed to a peace treaty with Israel for economic reasons, a major contributor was the knowledge that the United States would flood them with foreign aid in exchange for signing such an agreement. Indeed, Egypt has received roughly the same amount of annual foreign aid from the United States as Israel ever since. All of this isn’t even to mention the fact that we’re the largest contributor to every international foreign aid operation despite being the one of the--if not the--hardest hit by the recent recession.


Concerning our military operations, none of those have been terroristic either. We fought the Korean War with UN permission and support and even when the Chinese got involved we limited our operation to a police action in accordance with the wishes of the UN. This actually made the American public angry as well as the United Kingdom and our Korean allies because they were contributing troops to the operation that were now being dominated because we insisted on following the insufficient guidelines established by the United Nations for the coalition forces.

We catch a lot of crap about the Vietnam war but that wasn’t terroristic either. We didn’t do anything except liberate the South Vietnamese from North Vietnamese occupiers. Yes, there were a lot of civilian casualties as a result of our air operations. Yet, it’s a known fact that air raids always result in higher civilian casualties than other forms of combat AND we didn’t bomb anything without the permission of the South Vietnamese. In fact, our biggest mistake there was being too liberal and withdrawing too quickly without securing a free democracy capable of sustaining itself against future communist invasions.

Our operations in Panama tend to be viewed with positive-ish reactions and are relatively negligible anyway. We did a lot of hostage rescuing and that kind of stuff. Nothing major, certainly nothing terroristic.

In the First Gulf War we liberated Kuwait and defended Saudi Arabia with the permission and backing of the United Nations. We contributed more to this effort than all the other nations combined, and we certainly weren’t trying to influence anyone’s policy. In fact, many Americans were outraged because we allowed local policies to dictate the conduct of our soldiers. Female troops, for example, were not allowed to wear short sleeve shirts because it offended the clerics. In accordance with the wishes and in respect of Saudi Arabia we also replaced Christian chaplains with “moral officers.”

The Second Gulf War might be considered more closely related to terrorism, but it’s not at all. We haven’t tried to force anything on the locals. You might say we’re trying to force democracy on them but consider that Iraq’s free elections have a higher voter turn-out than ours. That’s under the constant threat of suicide bombers and an endless reign of mortar fire. I mean, we witnessed that quite recently, didn’t we? These people are willing to risk their lives to participate in the democratic system.

Besides, I don’t know if you’ve watched any of the recent reports from embedded journalists but what we’re doing now isn’t even military work. It is police work and the work of social workers. Iraq Diaries, for example, a documentary about US marines in Iraq, portrayed US soldiers rescuing cows from holes and working with the Iraqi police to monitor terrorist activities.

We’ve had some rough spots, no doubt. Abu Ghraib, for example. But we exposed the crimes in that facility to our own public and to the world, punished to perpetrators, and took all the appropriate actions. US generals are actually irritated with our government because it doesn’t let them use the tactics they feel are necessary to win the war. For example, we’re not allowed to attack mosques or firebomb cities.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/10/09

blancer wrote:


Out of curiosity: has US ever officially declared war against Vietnam?


Technically we didn’t even go to war…the title’s a sham. It was actually a police action.
Posted 11/10/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


blancer wrote:


Out of curiosity: has US ever officially declared war against Vietnam?


Technically we didn’t even go to war…the title’s a sham. It was actually a police action.


and the best thing we ever did in the history of the world
Posted 11/10/09

blancer wrote:


Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

You mean all this time, you yourself don't even know? Whereas I OTOH already had a clear idea just what terrorism is.

My definition of terrorism is an act of complete ignorance of any official channel of communication. That's why I used the infamous Iron Curtain as a physical symbolical representation of both the form and ideology that's terrorism.


My definition of terrorism is an act of complete ignorance of any official channel of communication??

So if Al-Qaeda announced it was going to attack a couple days beforehand, 9/11 wouldn't be a terrorist act?

Where did you get this definition from? We can't go around completely redefining words, the English language is pretty clear. Even in a political context, that definition is completely inaccurate.


Out of curiosity: has US ever officially declared war against Vietnam?

@Yei: Just because you can't think beyond the English dictionary doesn't mean that I OTOH shouldn't.

@blancer: What is the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964:

With the cold war at its height, the US leaders were worried that an attack on North Vietnam by the US would create tensions with the Chinese and Russians that would, in turn, lead to a larger conflict and possibly WW III. This created a difficult situation for the US and would eventually lead to many internal conflicts, which ultimately prevented the US from forming a firm policy for the region. The US was also faced with a number of cultural differences between the two countries, and what was considered corrupt by the US government was considered legitimate by South Vietnamese standards. It was difficult for the US to portray South Vietnam as a hard working, hard fighting democracy; corruption was widespread among officials and the armed forces. The Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) was disorganized due to the low morale of it's leaders and their singular interest in personal gain. Therefore the US had a great deal of difficulty in holding the army together in South Vietnam and saw only one solution, that was to start taking care of things for themselves. By 1950 the US began sending their first troops, firstly in an advisory role, which slowly escalated into a full blown commitment.

The large-scale involvement of the US came under the tenure of President Lyndon B. Johnson and his Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Johnson had replaced John F. Kennedy after he was assassinated in Dallas, Texas 1963. As president, he was torn between the differing strategies the US had for Vietnam. The increasing involvement and the escalation of troop involvement meant there were more casualties and more problems at home. But Johnson, who was always concerned about his image, and as president, held the power to halt the war in Vietnam, could not face the thought of being regarded as the first president in US history to loose a war.

The pressure around him grew so intense, that he was only left with one option and that was not to run for a second term. Basically, he handed the hot potato to Richard M. Nixon.(citation)



Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

I'm saying if Al-Qaeda wanted to talk in the first place, they would've made their official declaration. Instead of them just killed as many innocent people as they could, and then claimed that why they did it is for so-and-so.

Or are you telling me assassination, manslaughter, suicide bomb, kidnapping, or just about any other act that violates an individual's right and freedom to live and travel, is acceptable demand for a negotiation?


What does it matter if negotiation is acceptable or not? We're talking about the definition of terrorism..

Read it again.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/10/09 , edited 11/10/09

DomFortress wrote:

Read it again.


You can't redefine words Dom. I can't define terrorism as 'when people are shown love and affection'. Because that's not what terrorism is.


What does negotiating have anything to do with the definition of terrorism?
Posted 11/10/09

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Read it again.


You can't redefine words Dom. I can't define terrorism as 'when people are shown love and affection'. Because that's not what terrorism is.


What does negotiating have anything to do with the definition of terrorism?

Are you a hypocrite when you made this claim? When you asked me to define "terrorism".

FYI, terrorist factions use act of terrorism( aka complete ignorance of any official channel of communication as defined by me) as their acceptable form of demand for negotiation.
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
65 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 11/10/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


blancer wrote:


Out of curiosity: has US ever officially declared war against Vietnam?


Technically we didn’t even go to war…the title’s a sham. It was actually a police action.


Ah, didnt know, and I was too lazy to look it up. My friend asked me that question yesterday, so I thought maybe someone here would now. Thank you.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/10/09 , edited 11/10/09

DomFortress wrote:


Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Read it again.


You can't redefine words Dom. I can't define terrorism as 'when people are shown love and affection'. Because that's not what terrorism is.


What does negotiating have anything to do with the definition of terrorism?

Are you a hypocrite when you made this claim? When you asked me to define "terrorism".

FYI, terrorist factions use act of terrorism( aka complete ignorance of any official channel of communication as defined by me) as their acceptable form of demand for negotiation.


Ummm, no, how would that make me a hypocrite? I asked you to define it, and you gave a completely irrelevant definition.

Yeah some terrorists do that.

Seraph, I'll respond to you some day, first I got to go to sleep.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/11/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

If you’re pro-Palestinian you support or at least defend Hamas firing missiles at Israeli school children. Do you also defend this? I mean, the Israeli civilians have nothing more to do with the conflict than the German civilians. Wouldn’t it be prejudice to say it’s understandable for the Palestinian terrorists to target Israeli innocents but not German innocents, both of which are equally unrelated to the issue?

Isn’t liberal-terrorist supposed to be an oxy-moron? This historical event was pretty recent and seems to show that not only conservatives and Muslims can be terrorists and murderers. The left has its radicals, its extremists as well.


Palestinians also have nothing to do with what happened to Jews in Germany. Why they have to suffering under illegitimate invasion? Do Palestinians would sit back and watching their people being killed by heavy machine guns? The question is who started this war first. Palestinians under Yasser Arafat always wanted to make peace deal, from both Hamas or Fatah, that's why he got Nobel award.

If Israel wanted revenge, do it to Nazi or current Neo Nazi. Don't do it to wrong people and in wrong place.


SeraphAlford wrote:

You’re right; we’re not supposed to only consider how a country treats its own people, but I was taking into account our foreign affairs and I do not think that it makes us a terrorist state at all. I mean, we don’t really need to use intimidation and fear to control people. We’ve got money for that.


What makes me wonder is, why US seems very bothered to other countries and gives themselves many problems while in their country itself there are many problem that needs to be solved. Like you've mentioned, many wars that actually haven't been solved, instead it became worst than when the regime was still there.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/11/09 , edited 11/11/09


I’m not saying that the holocaust justified the nakba. That’s a completely different topic. Well, I suppose it doesn’t matter, I guess we can talk about this if you like.


Palestinians also have nothing to do with what happened to Jews in Germany.


The Palestinian Arabs and indeed the Arabs in general were very directly involved in the holocaust. Whenever Hitler sent his general Rommel, commonly known as the “Desert Fox,” through northern Africa to spearhead his genocidal campaign into the Greater Middle East both Nasser and Sadat offered to provide him with assistance.

The Palestinian Nationalist Al Husayni who served as the Head of the Arab Higher Committee, a member of the Waqf community, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and President of the Grand Muslim Council was a close friend of Hitler’s. Since long before the holocaust had even begun Husayni was instigating and orchestrating massacres against the Jews. In 1920, for example, he was banned from the British Mandate after instigated and orchestrating a race riot that culminated in the massacre of some seventy Jews during a Passover prayer ceremony at the Wailing Wall. Husayni and his Palestinian Nationalists sparked and carried out the 1929 massacres in Jerusalem, Hebron, Motza, and Safed.

The campaign of al-Husayni and his nationalists was not an independent Palestinian movement. It was just an extension of the holocaust and it is a well known historical fact that by 1937 the Palestinian nationalist movement was being funded by Hitler’s Third Reich. In 1941 he was invited to Berlin where he stayed as Hitler’s honored guest while launching a radio-broadcast campaign encouraging the Arabs, particularly the Palestinian Arabs, to massacre the Jews and support Hitler.

There are some Arab historians who argue that Husayni was just a wing nut and that he didn’t have the popular support of the Arabs, but in February 1941 one of the first public opinion polls in Palestine conducted by Sari Sakakini found that 88 percent of the Palestinian Arabs favored Nazi Germany. [source: Morris, Benny. 1948: A History of the First Arab Israeli War. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2008, 524 pages. Page 21].

So you see not only did the Arabs support the Nazi they also helped them extend the reaches of the holocaust. Although the Muslims were much more moderate than the German Nazis and the Europeans, the fact is that they were very much involved in Hitler’s genocide. Statistics also showed that Nazi sentiments were high in other Arab/Muslim nations, such as Egypt and Syria.


Why they have to suffering under illegitimate invasion?


With the exception of the Westbank they’re not being invaded. As Norman Finkelstein concedes in the introduction of his book Israel ethnically cleansed Gaza of the Jews and then proceeded to dismantle settlements in the Westbank while also taking steps to remove the blockade of Palestinian territory. The Palestinians then elected Hamas and conducted the illegal abduction of Gilad. Aside from being a blatant violation of international humanitarian law this kidnapping was also the shot heard round the world. This alone didn’t end the peace process, but Israel’s response to it was so insane that afterwards any hope of immediate progress in the Westbank was instantly obliterated. That’s why they’re facing a legitimate invasion.

As it stands why should Israel return to Westbank at all? In 1948 the Arabs ethnically cleansed the Greater Middle East and stole 100,000 square kilometers of Jewish land--four times the size of Israel. Again, Arab scholars often argue that nearly a million Jews were slaughtered in the streets, burnt alive, or driven from their homes is because Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine during their War for Independence.

However, in November of 1947 an Egyptian delegate by the name of Heykal Pasha addressed the Political Committee of the United Nations General Assembly concerning their plan to partition Palestine into two separate Jewish and Arab states. Heykal spoke on behalf of “Muslim countries,” and “all the Arab states,” threatening that the establishment of a Jewish state would result in massacres and race wars against the Jews as well as anti-Semitism greater than that present in Nazi Germany.

So, the Arabs can complain about the Westbank whenever they return the 100,000 square kilometers of Jewish land they stole.


Do Palestinians would sit back and watching their people being killed by heavy machine guns?


That’s exactly what they’re doing. They’re so caught up with Israel that they don’t even pay attention to Hamas’ troopers killing Palestinians in the street. Need I remind you that it was Hamas that, during its coup, stole TV vans and used them for gang-warfare style drive by shootings and typical terrorist car bombings?


The question is who started this war first. Palestinians under Yasser Arafat always wanted to make peace deal, from both Hamas and Fatah, that's why he got Nobel Award.


There’s something I find fairly amusing about that statement. You apparently didn’t do a lot of research, or if you did your source was just a pro-Palestinian propaganda page. Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace prize along with the Israeli president Shimon Peres and the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for joint efforts at Oslo. Following Oslo there were attempts at Arafat’s life and Hamas began challenging Fatah’s authority.

Yasser did not want to make peace.

“We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem.” Yasser Arafat

“And when we signed the accord in Oslo, if any has an objection to that agreement, I have a hundred.” Yasser Arafat.

"Combat, combat, combat! Jihad, Jihad, Jihad!" Yasser Arafter (okay, so I don't know the context of THIS one but I thought it would be funny to include it.)

Abd Al-Bari Atwan is a famous pro-Arab/Muslim journalist and personal friend of Yasser and during an interview that was aired Feb 16, 2006 he stated:"

When the Oslo Accords were signed, I went to visit [Arafat] in Tunis. It was around July, before he went to Gaza. I said to him: We disagree. I do not support this agreement. It will harm us, the Palestinians, distort our image, and uproot us from our Arab origins. This agreement will not get us what we want, because these Israelis are deceitful.

He took me outside and told me: By Allah, I will drive them crazy. By Allah, I will turn this agreement into a curse for them. By Allah, perhaps not in my lifetime, but you will live to see the Israelis flee from Palestine. Have a little patience. I entrust this with you. Don't mention this to anyone. Always remember this. Sometimes, when I would criticize him strongly, he would say to me: Do you remember the promise I made, Abd Al-Bari?”

You should read Mao Zedong's "On Protracted War," or if you're not ready for such tedious writing Carlos Marighella "mini-manual of the urban guerrilla," both of which are still used by terrorists today. They talk about phase warfare, gradually exhausting your enemies, delegitimization, and engaging in strategic diplomacy to win the overall victory and eventually eradication of opposition.

It’s very basic modern guerilla warfare and the very tactics that the Palestinians are employing today.


Here are some more fun quotes to demonstrate what I am talking about:



The Palestinians under Arafat were the ones who carried out the Munich Massacre. They also carried out the hijacking of an Austrian passenger plane (look up Sabena Flight 572,) and threatened to crash it into Tel Aviv. Black September, after all, was just a subgroup of Arafat’s Fatah.

Arafat made promises of peace in English and on the official record, but behind the scenes this was all a farce, a blatant contrivance. In Arabic he proclaimed destruction.

As far as Hamas goes, they began rallying against Arafat and challenging the authority of Fatah after the signing of the Oslo Accords.

Who started the war? The Nazis started the war, the Arabs brought it to the Greater Middle East, and it continues to this day.



What makes me wonder is, why US seems very bothered to other countries and gives themselves many problems while in their country itself there are many problem that needs to be solved. Like you've mentioned, many wars that actually haven't been solved, instead it became worst than when the regime was still there.


There have been some martial conflicts that we left unresolved, but it wasn’t getting involved itself that was the problem. It was getting involved half-heartedly. America has good intentions when we start these conflicts, but then we the people remember…oh yeah, I’m selfish. Fuck the Iraqis, fuck the South Vietnamese, and fuck the South Koreans I don’t want to invest money in their liberation.

On the flip side we’ve also accomplished quite a lot from our meddling. Roosevelt of course got the South American countries out of debt, stabilized, and cleaned of corruption. Before he even became President we had already liberated the Philippines from Spanish occupiers and managed to give the people there medicine, clean water, power, roads, and the equipment they needed to establish a secure and self maintaining, modern economy.

World War I would’ve ended very differently if we hadn’t gotten involved. We liberated France, Africa, and China in WWII. In the Korean War we liberated South Korea, remains liberated today. In the Vietnam War we liberated South Vietnam for about five minutes. In The Gulf War we liberated Kuwait and saved Saudi Arabia, successfully preventing Saddam from taking control of the Muslim Capital of the World and 50% of the world’s oil supply.

In the Cold War we liberated East Germany and Eastern Europe from Stalin and his “Iron Curtain.”


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.