Go to first unread
Back
to top
anyone going to london on thursday to protest against George W.?
Watch
Announcements
This discussion is closed.
Report
#241
(Original post by vienna95)
i dont understand the significance of those names.
the US had property in Cuba under Batista and in Chile under AllenDe, which both nationalised into the state. so, yes the americans were pissed. the main reasons they supported these dictators was to keep the areas surrounding the Cuban regime preferential to the US and not the soviets. it all seems fair game in the name of national interest and at the time the security of the Americas and its allies.
i find it rather amusing that you complain about the US' motives for free trade and then complain when they have a monopoly on it. NAFTA is the worlds largest free trade area, what are your thoughts about mechanisms in place in other parts of the world, notably the EU?
i dont understand the significance of those names.
the US had property in Cuba under Batista and in Chile under AllenDe, which both nationalised into the state. so, yes the americans were pissed. the main reasons they supported these dictators was to keep the areas surrounding the Cuban regime preferential to the US and not the soviets. it all seems fair game in the name of national interest and at the time the security of the Americas and its allies.
i find it rather amusing that you complain about the US' motives for free trade and then complain when they have a monopoly on it. NAFTA is the worlds largest free trade area, what are your thoughts about mechanisms in place in other parts of the world, notably the EU?
THEY ONLY FIGHT FOR THEIR OWN WALLETS.
The EU (just as USA) look for their own, I'm not even saying that taking care of a couple of your own citizens and let the whole planet went down it's wrong.
But you can't say that they take care of freedom.
Again: THEY ONLY TAKE CARE FOR THEIR OWN WALLETS.
0
Report
#242
(Original post by El_Borish)
ahem -free up american trade. sanctions are still imposed by the UN and other organisations, while only america agrres to trade.
similarly, its not true that american administrations have always been against
a) saddam
b) bin laden
c) che guevara
d) pinochet (as mentioned earlier)
in fact, in all of these cases, the US government of the day has used these nations as means to make hits at the USSR (in the instance of Iraq and Afghanistan, and cuba) and pnochet was an attempt to "bring dstability to the region" (aka get it under our control). unfortunately they always seem to either lose control of their frankensteins, or simply lose interest: the military bases and training they gave to al -qaeda, and bin laden's faction in particular, when the USSR tried to invade Afghanistan (often called the USSR's Vietnam, for reference), now proves impossible for them to destroy.
in short, american foreign policy has proved time and again to be short-sighted and naive; creating problems as short-term answers that they then cannot solve, and subsequently meaning the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
oh, sorry- - "collateral damage"
but you can't blame them really - and after all, as Georgie Jr. once said:
"this foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating."
ahem -free up american trade. sanctions are still imposed by the UN and other organisations, while only america agrres to trade.
similarly, its not true that american administrations have always been against
a) saddam
b) bin laden
c) che guevara
d) pinochet (as mentioned earlier)
in fact, in all of these cases, the US government of the day has used these nations as means to make hits at the USSR (in the instance of Iraq and Afghanistan, and cuba) and pnochet was an attempt to "bring dstability to the region" (aka get it under our control). unfortunately they always seem to either lose control of their frankensteins, or simply lose interest: the military bases and training they gave to al -qaeda, and bin laden's faction in particular, when the USSR tried to invade Afghanistan (often called the USSR's Vietnam, for reference), now proves impossible for them to destroy.
in short, american foreign policy has proved time and again to be short-sighted and naive; creating problems as short-term answers that they then cannot solve, and subsequently meaning the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
oh, sorry- - "collateral damage"
but you can't blame them really - and after all, as Georgie Jr. once said:
"this foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating."
0
Report
#243
(Original post by Eternal Idol)
I'm not complaining, but you said that they do what they do cause they are fighting for freedom and that's not true at all.
THEY ONLY FIGHT FOR THEIR OWN WALLETS.
The EU (just as USA) look for their own, I'm not even saying that taking care of a couple of your own citizens and let the whole planet went down it's wrong.
But you can't say that they take care of freedom.
Again: THEY ONLY TAKE CARE FOR THEIR OWN WALLETS.
I'm not complaining, but you said that they do what they do cause they are fighting for freedom and that's not true at all.
THEY ONLY FIGHT FOR THEIR OWN WALLETS.
The EU (just as USA) look for their own, I'm not even saying that taking care of a couple of your own citizens and let the whole planet went down it's wrong.
But you can't say that they take care of freedom.
Again: THEY ONLY TAKE CARE FOR THEIR OWN WALLETS.
"no whats scary, is the entire latin american continent full of USSR missiles. Thatcher and Reagan with a huge slice of luck and domestic economic stupidity by the Soviets helped end a nuclear war that threatened the world. the US single handedly took responsiblity for those morals."
"the main reasons they supported these dictators was to keep the areas surrounding the Cuban regime preferential to the US and not the soviets. it all seems fair game in the name of national interest and at the time the security of the Americas and its allies. "
0
Report
#244
"in fact, in all of these cases, the US government of the day has used these nations as means to make hits at the USSR (in the instance of Iraq and Afghanistan, and cuba) "
so are you now saying it wasnt 'for their wallets' ?
(Original post by Eternal Idol)
I couldn't agree more.
I couldn't agree more.
0
Report
#245
(Original post by vienna95)
"in fact, in all of these cases, the US government of the day has used these nations as means to make hits at the USSR (in the instance of Iraq and Afghanistan, and cuba) "
so are you now saying it wasnt 'for their wallets' ?
"in fact, in all of these cases, the US government of the day has used these nations as means to make hits at the USSR (in the instance of Iraq and Afghanistan, and cuba) "
so are you now saying it wasnt 'for their wallets' ?
Their ****ing wallets, domination of the world, destruction of enemies.
That's not freedom ...
0
Report
#246
(Original post by vienna95)
my position has been quite clear from my posts...
"no whats scary, is the entire latin american continent full of USSR missiles. Thatcher and Reagan with a huge slice of luck and domestic economic stupidity by the Soviets helped end a nuclear war that threatened the world. the US single handedly took responsiblity for those morals."
"the main reasons they supported these dictators was to keep the areas surrounding the Cuban regime preferential to the US and not the soviets. it all seems fair game in the name of national interest and at the time the security of the Americas and its allies. "
my position has been quite clear from my posts...
"no whats scary, is the entire latin american continent full of USSR missiles. Thatcher and Reagan with a huge slice of luck and domestic economic stupidity by the Soviets helped end a nuclear war that threatened the world. the US single handedly took responsiblity for those morals."
"the main reasons they supported these dictators was to keep the areas surrounding the Cuban regime preferential to the US and not the soviets. it all seems fair game in the name of national interest and at the time the security of the Americas and its allies. "
0
Report
#247
Hmmm, so the U.S. has the right to overthrow the democratically elected government of another soverign nation in the name of "national interest". Interesting point that....
0
Report
#249
They don't have that right and they try to convince the whole world that they do what they do to make the earth a better place.
HAHAHAHA.
I can't beleive the people that buy that kind of crap ...
HAHAHAHA.
I can't beleive the people that buy that kind of crap ...
0
Report
#250
(Original post by kildare)
Hmmm, so the U.S. has the right to overthrow the democratically elected government of another soverign nation in the name of "national interest". Interesting point that....
Hmmm, so the U.S. has the right to overthrow the democratically elected government of another soverign nation in the name of "national interest". Interesting point that....
0
Report
#251
(Original post by Elle)
Yeah, your contradicting yourself..
Yeah, your contradicting yourself..
it really is hard work...
0
Report
#252
(Original post by Eternal Idol)
Come on, don't twist all.
Their ****ing wallets, domination of the world, destruction of enemies.
That's not freedom ...
Come on, don't twist all.
Their ****ing wallets, domination of the world, destruction of enemies.
That's not freedom ...
0
Report
#253
(Original post by Eternal Idol)
Thatcher it's a shame.
Thatcher it's a shame.
0
Report
#254
Margaret Thatcher it's crap. Final word about that.
"America, since the second world war, has gone out of its way to protect nations and their right to exist. Israel, Bosnia, Kuwait, Kurdistan, Kosovo..the US fought tooth and nail to protect them and funnily enough the majority were muslim..that is a right that it will not haggle over."
I'm not twisting nothing, I've answered to that stupidity of above.
America doesn't fight for freedom.
Final word about that too.
"America, since the second world war, has gone out of its way to protect nations and their right to exist. Israel, Bosnia, Kuwait, Kurdistan, Kosovo..the US fought tooth and nail to protect them and funnily enough the majority were muslim..that is a right that it will not haggle over."
I'm not twisting nothing, I've answered to that stupidity of above.
America doesn't fight for freedom.
Final word about that too.
0
Report
#255
(Original post by Eternal Idol)
Margaret Thatcher it's crap. Final word about that.
Margaret Thatcher it's crap. Final word about that.
"America, since the second world war, has gone out of its way to protect nations and their right to exist. Israel, Bosnia, Kuwait, Kurdistan, Kosovo..the US fought tooth and nail to protect them and funnily enough the majority were muslim..that is a right that it will not haggle over."
I'm not twisting nothing, I've answered to that stupidity of above.
I'm not twisting nothing, I've answered to that stupidity of above.
America doesn't fight for freedom.
Final word about that too.
Final word about that too.
0
Report
#256
Yeah, crap, of piece of ****.
The kind of thing that nobody wants to be close to it.
Oh, now I'm coherent, thanks.
You are always, fascist, thanks the kindest that I can say right now about you.
The kind of thing that nobody wants to be close to it.
Oh, now I'm coherent, thanks.
You are always, fascist, thanks the kindest that I can say right now about you.
0
Report
#257
(Original post by Eternal Idol)
Yeah, crap, of piece of ****.
The kind of thing that nobody wants to be close to it.
Oh, now I'm coherent, thanks.
You are always, fascist, thanks the kindest that I can say right now about you.
Yeah, crap, of piece of ****.
The kind of thing that nobody wants to be close to it.
Oh, now I'm coherent, thanks.
You are always, fascist, thanks the kindest that I can say right now about you.
0
Report
#259
(Original post by vienna95)
ok. thanks.
ok. thanks.
I don't have anything against you.
0
Report
#260
you'll be pleased to know that you hold similar concerns to Mr.Bush,
who said in his speech today,
"We cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient."
who said in his speech today,
"We cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient."
0
X
new posts
