The “Leader” of the free world!

[Cheb]

I may be blinded, but it is more likely that, like the vast majority of the rest of the world's population, I am not. Would you even consider for a moment that in fact I am not wrong and you are?

Oh I already did. In fact for a while I actually believe all that @#$%. But tha is only because I was ignorant and believed all the bull the media fed me. It is not only until I started to really look into this that I realized I was a fool for believing what I was told to believe. Trust me my eyes are wide open.

What important questions have been unanswered?

Why have the important questions regarding hte 9/11 attacks not been answered?
Why is it that coincidently the US is occupying key positions to prepare itself for a greater "threat"?
Why did the Bush administration keep changing its intentions for invading Iraq?
Why are most members of the Bush administration mostly convicts?

This is just form the top of my head that I can think of right now. There are many more.

The trillions of dollars of oil, if there are that much, belong to the Iraqi people. I do not see George Bush getting any of it. The Taleban was willing to build pipelines across Afghanistan, and even if they were not, so what? What is worth the cost of the war in Afghanistan? The War has cost the US a lot already and is costing more every day.

Oh do they really belong to the Iraqi people?? Please look into this more because it seems like you have made your mind up.

And who do you believe? Why do you want to believe something that is so absurd? Why is it you have chosen to believe something so insane? What has gone wrong in your life that you feel this is an appropriate response?

Why is it absurd?
Believe me nothing has gone wrong in my life. Thank God my life is good and I am a happy man. I believe this because I believe what makes sense. You believe what you are told. That is the difference between us.

 

[HeiGou]

Oh I already did. In fact for a while I actually believe all that @#$%. But tha is only because I was ignorant and believed all the bull the media fed me. It is not only until I started to really look into this that I realized I was a fool for believing what I was told to believe. Trust me my eyes are wide open.

Uh huh. Perhaps that is the appeal of conspiracies - they provide a sense of power and knowledge. After all only you know how the world is really run. You can't see how bad this is for you?

Why have the important questions regarding hte 9/11 attacks not been answered?

Such as?

Why is it that coincidently the US is occupying key positions to prepare itself for a greater "threat"?

Which key positions?

Why did the Bush administration keep changing its intentions for invading Iraq?

Domestic politics - to justify it to a doubtful electorate and hostile media.

Why are most members of the Bush administration mostly convicts?

Which members of the Bush administration are convicts?

This is just form the top of my head that I can think of right now. There are many more.

I look forward to hearing about them.

Oh do they really belong to the Iraqi people?? Please look into this more because it seems like you have made your mind up.

Yes the oil belongs to the Iraqi people or more accurately the Iraqi government. Who else would it belong to?

Why is it absurd?

Because the world is such a screwed up place - you think any masterminds thought this nonsense up and then conspired to inflict it on the world? Why would they bother?

Believe me nothing has gone wrong in my life. Thank God my life is good and I am a happy man. I believe this because I believe what makes sense. You believe what you are told. That is the difference between us.

How does all this make sense to you?

 

[Christian_dove]

Oh really? How many Jews has Bush incinerated recently? How many women and children has he gased? Has he suspended the Constitution? Set up any Concentration Camps?

Guantanamo, for one. There are probably several internation camps worldwide designed and created by both the Bush regime and the former american regimes. You must be a retard not to know this.

Rubbish. Fox is pro-Bush but the traditional media is viciously anti-Bush. Look at the Air Gaurd fuss.

All the national news channels are pro-Bush. Or actually, they are pro-whoever-is-in-charge. Cause it really doesn't matter, the ones in control is not Bush nor any other president... It's the same people who runs the show anyway.

Are you payed by CIA? You are extremely favourable towards the US.

 

[HeiGou]

Guantanamo, for one. There are probably several internation camps worldwide designed and created by both the Bush regime and the former american regimes. You must be a retard not to know this.

So you are claiming that in Guantanamo people are being murdered on an industrial scale and their bodies incinerated in crematoria? Or just that the relatively small number of people being held prisoner in Cuba is equivalent of the Holocaust?

All the national news channels are pro-Bush. Or actually, they are pro-whoever-is-in-charge. Cause it really doesn't matter, the ones in control is not Bush nor any other president... It's the same people who runs the show anyway.

This does not explain why the media has hounded Bush for years with tales of drug use, draft dodging, and the like. Explain to me why anyone who was so pro-Bush would be reproducing faked memos from the Alabama Air Guard? It is true that if you occupy the more fringe end of the political spectrum every one looks pro-Bush, but that is not our problem, it is your problem.

Are you payed by CIA? You are extremely favourable towards the US.

If only. If the CIA wants to pay me, and are listening to this, well you guys know where to find me. It is the extremism of the Anti-American feeling here that drives me to defend what I would rather not defend. You are mad if you think Bush is the same as Hitler.

 

[Christian_dove]

So you are claiming that in Guantanamo people are being murdered on an industrial scale and their bodies incinerated in crematoria? Or just that the relatively small number of people being held prisoner in Cuba is equivalent of the Holocaust?

No, in fact I didn't mention a word in regards to the amount of people killed by the Bush regime, there are no doubt several million victims of american foreign politics, but not all were killed by the current US gouvernment. But I consider such numbers a possibility in the near future. And btw, I see no difference between the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Poland in 1939. Bush used the September 11 attacks as Hitler used the 1933 burning of the Reichstag to repress domestic dissidents.

If only. If the CIA wants to pay me, and are listening to this, well you guys know where to find me. It is the extremism of the Anti-American feeling here that drives me to defend what I would rather not defend. You are mad if you think Bush is the same as Hitler.

Actually I think Bush and Hitler are very much alike. Well, obviously, Hitler probably had a sharper intellect whereas Bush seems to be more of an idiot. Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was. And of course, there are other differences. Hitler, for example, was legally elected. And he had a plan--not one that I like, but a plan--for the period after the war. But they both seem to share the same fascination for "blonde haired, blue eyed, white super-race. (funny, that's how I look..)" I say this because since squatting in the White House, Bush has been intent on bombing other far-away, dark-skinned people of Middle Eastern countries, as part of his "War on Terror," which is really a War of Terror.

Adolf Hitler claimed to have launched a 'defensive' war against the Jews, Slavs and the rest of Europe to protect the German race. Similarly Bush has waged the same 'defensive' war against the Islamic world and anyone else that does not to conform to the US dictates. ... Hitler claimed the supremacy of the Aryan race, Bush calls for the supremacy of US democracy run by its Multinationals, as exemplified by Paul Bremer of Iraq with the likes of Halliburton and Bechtel.

Adolf had the Gestapo; Bush has the FBI and CIA, who are far more efficient with killings, kidnapping, torture and now arbitrary imprisonment without charge or legal representation. ... There are 'Arabs' and 'Muslims' campaigning and raising funds along with the Zionist camp to re-elect Bush. They are staunch supporter of US democracy and a believer in Adolf Bush. ..

I'll be happy to stop comparing Bush to Hitler when he stops acting like him. Maybe I am mad. So be it.

 

[Christian_dove]

Now for something a lot more entertaining:

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/campaign_lies.html

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/the_liars__den.html

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/on_the_road_to_rock_bottom.html

 

[seek.learn]

Salaam o alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatahu

AllahuAlim (Allah knows best)

Im unfortunately not really upto date with my politics. So just ignore me if you will. I just wanted to say a wee little bit directed mainly towards my muslim brothers and sisters.

"But speak to him mildly; perchance he may take warning" 20:44, Abdullah YusufAli translation.

This ayat is related to pharoh. Allah commands Musa (AS) to speak mildly to Pharoh! Please dear brothers, Yes stand for your belief, may Allah guide us to the truth and spread it through us InshaAllah! But isnt it inappropriate for us to call pakistan and saddam and musharaff and all those ppl not ideal muslims and we judge their faith and in doing so imply we're better muslims (forgive my assumption, trying to make a point) and at the same time use such attitudes and words which do not reflect the teachings of ur deen???

Im sorry this comes in b/w all this political talk and has really nothing to do with whats going on. Truth be told in my urgency i havent even read all the replies, just zoomed over them in hope of someone having said something about how such an attitude and these rude words are not appropriate for a believer. Let us work to improve ourselves InshaAllah.

InshaAllah may Allah guide us and teach us better. Aameen.
Sorry for the interruption again, for this post being completely unrelated to the topic. And my intent was not to offend anyone.

Assalam o alaikum wa rahmatullah

 

[renak]

I don't think that citizens of the USA have more mental illness, we just have more access to psychological drugs. Big pharma plays a HUGE role in our country. We are overmedicated, which probably needs to stop.

 

[HeiGou]

No, in fact I didn't mention a word in regards to the amount of people killed by the Bush regime,

I wrote "Oh really? How many Jews has Bush incinerated recently? How many women and children has he gased? Has he suspended the Constitution? Set up any Concentration Camps?" and you responded "Guantanamo for one". Exactly how would a normal English-speaking person read that other than as a claim by you that Bush was incinerating people in Guantanamo?

there are no doubt several million victims of american foreign politics, but not all were killed by the current US gouvernment. But I consider such numbers a possibility in the near future.

Exactly how has the US foreign policy killed millions? And so you are saying you expect Bush to kill millions in the 2 years he has left in power?

And btw, I see no difference between the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Poland in 1939. Bush used the September 11 attacks as Hitler used the 1933 burning of the Reichstag to repress domestic dissidents.

Which goes to the heart of your problems. If you cannot see the distinction between a policy designed to annihilate the Polish nation and the Jewish people through mass murder and repression on the one hand, and a foolish policy designed to create democracy in Iraq on the other, you are one sick puppy. Did Bush suspend Parliament? Lock any of those all-too-vocal domestic "dissidents" (by that you mean people who express an anti-Bush opinion I guess) in concentration camps? If you can seriously compare these two incidents - the death of Democracy in Germany and a tightening of security laws in the US - there is something wrong with your moral compass.

Actually I think Bush and Hitler are very much alike. Well, obviously, Hitler probably had a sharper intellect whereas Bush seems to be more of an idiot.

Again we have established your lack of judgement on moral issues. But I agree with you about the intellect. Hitler was probably much smarter than Bush. Although Bush does play it up a little.

Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was.

Absolutely.

And of course, there are other differences. Hitler, for example, was legally elected.

Ironically, Bush was legally elected - Twice in fact - and Hitler was not. He did not win a majority of seats ever. He got into power through a backroom deal with the Conservatives and Catholics.

And he had a plan--not one that I like, but a plan--for the period after the war.

Unlike Bush who does not even have a plan for the war. That is the real difference between someone who wants to conquer the world and Bush who wanted to stay at home until he was forced into global politics.

But they both seem to share the same fascination for "blonde haired, blue eyed, white super-race. (funny, that's how I look..)"

Really? This is the same George Bush who appointed Colin Powell as his Secretary of State? Condi Rice as his successor? A guy called Gonzalez as his Cheif Council? Elaine Chao as his secretary of labor? Where he George W ever expressed an interest in blond-haired blue-eyed white members of a super race? This is a pathetic smear even by your standards.

I say this because since squatting in the White House, Bush has been intent on bombing other far-away, dark-skinned people of Middle Eastern countries, as part of his "War on Terror," which is really a War of Terror.

So it is all George W's fault - not Osama at all? George W was in power for a while before September 11. How many dark-skinned people did he bomb before 9-11? How many has he bombed since? He is a remarkably restrained President all things considering. Nor is there any evidence that he is bombing dark-skinned people so much as terrorists who happen to be Muslims.

Adolf Hitler claimed to have launched a 'defensive' war against the Jews, Slavs and the rest of Europe to protect the German race.

The difference here is that Jews did not attack anyone.

Similarly Bush has waged the same 'defensive' war against the Islamic world and anyone else that does not to conform to the US dictates.

Like Castro? Chavez? Nor is Bush waging any war against Islam but against terrorists as he repeatedly says. He main allies are Muslim countries.

... Hitler claimed the supremacy of the Aryan race, Bush calls for the supremacy of US democracy run by its Multinationals, as exemplified by Paul Bremer of Iraq with the likes of Halliburton and Bechtel.

And yet Bush is not interested in forcing anyone into such a system. He says it is better, and by any measure it is, but he does not force Cuba to join. Nor Mali.

Adolf had the Gestapo; Bush has the FBI and CIA, who are far more efficient with killings, kidnapping, torture and now arbitrary imprisonment without charge or legal representation.

Really? Between 1941 and 1945 the Nazis killed six million Jews. George W will have been in power twice as long when he goes. You claiming the "more efficient" CIA will have killed 12 million or more by then? Seek medical help.

... There are 'Arabs' and 'Muslims' campaigning and raising funds along with the Zionist camp to re-elect Bush. They are staunch supporter of US democracy and a believer in Adolf Bush. ..

Uh huh.

I'll be happy to stop comparing Bush to Hitler when he stops acting like him. Maybe I am mad. So be it.

No maybe about it. How old are you by the way?

 

[Christian_dove]

I wrote "Oh really? How many Jews has Bush incinerated recently? How many women and children has he gased? Has he suspended the Constitution? Set up any Concentration Camps?" and you responded "Guantanamo for one". Exactly how would a normal English-speaking person read that other than as a claim by you that Bush was incinerating people in Guantanamo?




Exactly how has the US foreign policy killed millions? And so you are saying you expect Bush to kill millions in the 2 years he has left in power?

GW's lasting legacy will be that he committed America to an eternal war.

Which goes to the heart of your problems. If you cannot see the distinction between a policy designed to annihilate the Polish nation and the Jewish people through mass murder and repression on the one hand, and a foolish policy designed to create democracy in Iraq on the other, you are one sick puppy. Did Bush suspend Parliament? Lock any of those all-too-vocal domestic "dissidents" (by that you mean people who express an anti-Bush opinion I guess) in concentration camps? If you can seriously compare these two incidents - the death of Democracy in Germany and a tightening of security laws in the US - there is something wrong with your moral compass.

Well, we have become more sivilized in the western world. But if Bush had been the president in the 1930'ies, I bet he would have been just as mean as Hitler.

Ironically, Bush was legally elected - Twice in fact - and Hitler was not. He did not win a majority of seats ever. He got into power through a backroom deal with the Conservatives and Catholics.

George W. Bush was installed as President of the United States by a conservative Supreme Court. In both cases, governments used "national security" as an excuse to launch an assault on democratic freedoms. While "lebensraum" was a rallying cry for Hitler, Bush's "evil axis," referring to North Korea, Iran and Iraq, was supposed to generate patriotic "no-think" in the USA.

Just as Hitler detached himself from the League of Nations, George W. has been assuming a more insular position internationally. ... Just as the burning of the Reichstag provided the Nazi party with the opportunity for shredding the Weimar Constitution, so did the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 provide the Republican administration (Cheney/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld) with the rationale for abolishing the freedoms granted to all citizens in the American Constitution. ...

Unlike Bush who does not even have a plan for the war. That is the real difference between someone who wants to conquer the world and Bush who wanted to stay at home until he was forced into global politics.

If american authorities didn't want to conquer the world, what in Gods name are they doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? I am not just calling Bush an idiot, the whole line of presidents since Kennedy were all corrupted and just puppets in the hands of others.

Really? This is the same George Bush who appointed Colin Powell as his Secretary of State? Condi Rice as his successor? A guy called Gonzalez as his Cheif Council? Elaine Chao as his secretary of labor? Where he George W ever expressed an interest in blond-haired blue-eyed white members of a super race? This is a pathetic smear even by your standards.

Powell, just another puppet. Rice, a puppet. All puppets... Actually, I think the american racism is more based on cultural issues than skin color.

So it is all George W's fault - not Osama at all? George W was in power for a while before September 11. How many dark-skinned people did he bomb before 9-11? How many has he bombed since? He is a remarkably restrained President all things considering. Nor is there any evidence that he is bombing dark-skinned people so much as terrorists who happen to be Muslims.

The feds and CIA knew all to well what was going to happen before 9/11. It was convenient, they needed a new Pearl Harbour (an attack which american authorities ALSO knew of before it actually happened) in order to invade Iraq for the sake of securing future oil import. How many lives are lost because of american authorities? Nobody knows, but not few.

Like Castro? Chavez? Nor is Bush waging any war against Islam but against terrorists as he repeatedly says. He main allies are Muslim countries.

His main allies are Blair/England and some rather psychopatic dictators around the globe, which proves that the man couldn't give a s h i t about democracy or not democracy. They just need oil..

And yet Bush is not interested in forcing anyone into such a system. He says it is better, and by any measure it is, but he does not force Cuba to join. Nor Mali.

He says a lot, doesn't he...

Really? Between 1941 and 1945 the Nazis killed six million Jews. George W will have been in power twice as long when he goes. You claiming the "more efficient" CIA will have killed 12 million or more by then? Seek medical help.

Again, GW's lasting legacy will be that he committed America to an eternal war.

 

[HeiGou]

GW's lasting legacy will be that he committed America to an eternal war.

No, that will be Osama Bin Laden's legacy. George W simply struck back.

Not that I think it will be eternal. I think Islamic fundamentalism of OBL's sort is on the decline - it is loosing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Well, we have become more sivilized in the western world. But if Bush had been the president in the 1930'ies, I bet he would have been just as mean as Hitler.

So I will take it you accept there is no comparison whatsoever between what George W has done and what Hitler did. You are forced to fall back on what George W "might" have done had he been born in 1890. Fine. What a waste of my time.

George W. Bush was installed as President of the United States by a conservative Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court was split in 2000 between Liberals and Conservatives with some swing voters. The Swing came down on the side of the Republicans. Take it up with them.

In both cases, governments used "national security" as an excuse to launch an assault on democratic freedoms. While "lebensraum" was a rallying cry for Hitler, Bush's "evil axis," referring to North Korea, Iran and Iraq, was supposed to generate patriotic "no-think" in the USA.

Except Lebensraum involved invading countries, murdering their women and children and taking their land. George W has not launched an assault of democratic freedoms, or if he has it has been extremely lame, and he is not trying to take anyone's property much less murder their families. As I said, if you cannot see the distinction there is something wrong with you.

Just as Hitler detached himself from the League of Nations, George W. has been assuming a more insular position internationally.

Well that is not true. He is more isolated from the UN - but he has not left it. Another analogy down the drain. And he is the most engaged President when it comes to international issues for decades - probably since Eisenhower. All his important issues are foreign issues.

... Just as the burning of the Reichstag provided the Nazi party with the opportunity for shredding the Weimar Constitution, so did the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 provide the Republican administration (Cheney/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld) with the rationale for abolishing the freedoms granted to all citizens in the American Constitution. ...

What freedoms mentioned in the Constitution have been abolished? The difference here is that people died in a terrorist attack on America in 9-11. No sign George W wanted it or planned it or knew of it.

If american authorities didn't want to conquer the world, what in Gods name are they doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? I am not just calling Bush an idiot, the whole line of presidents since Kennedy were all corrupted and just puppets in the hands of others.

Uh huh. They are seeking justice. What else would they be doing?

Odd places to start conquering the world from don't you think?

Powell, just another puppet. Rice, a puppet. All puppets... Actually, I think the american racism is more based on cultural issues than skin color.

So it isn't racism at all you mean? Fine. Puppets? Of those shape-changing inter-galatic lizards again perhaps?

The feds and CIA knew all to well what was going to happen before 9/11. It was convenient, they needed a new Pearl Harbour (an attack which american authorities ALSO knew of before it actually happened) in order to invade Iraq for the sake of securing future oil import. How many lives are lost because of american authorities? Nobody knows, but not few.

Uh huh. What is the evidence for your absurd claims?

His main allies are Blair/England and some rather psychopatic dictators around the globe, which proves that the man couldn't give a s h i t about democracy or not democracy. They just need oil..

He is sending soldiers out there to bring democracy. He clearly does care. His main enemies are ALL psychopathic dictators. That is the difference.

Again, GW's lasting legacy will be that he committed America to an eternal war.

We will see. No doubt terrorism will splutter on, but it is not winning so far.

 

[Christian_dove]

He is sending soldiers out there to bring democracy. He clearly does care. His main enemies are ALL psychopathic dictators. That is the difference.

Actually, I think you are a moron and discussing with you is like discussing with a blind and deaf 5-year old who is incapable and unwilling of understanding even the easiest of concepts. The 5 year old I can excuse...

How can USA (or a moron like you) justify the support of dictators on one hand, and the removal of others on the other? Who gave Saddam Hussein support for decades until he became to "difficult" to deal with? USA. Who gave him chemical weapons? Who supported Taliban? USA. For years the United States has helped arm dictators -- to keep them out of the communist bloc, to keep the oil flowing, to keep the arms makers happy. And to empower themselves.

USA armed the Shah of Iran before the militants in the streets overthrew him. USA armed Suharto in Indonesia, whom used American arms to invade East Timor and repress its people. USA armed the generals and colonels throughout Central America. They ruled through death squads and terror even when civilian presidents were elected.

According to Amnesty International, "arbitrary arrest, torture, 'disappearance' and political killings were everyday realities" for Guatemalans during decades of U.S. financed military dictatorship.

USA armed the generals who ruled Pakistan, in violation of US law that sought to block aid to countries developing their own nuclear weapons. According to journalist Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker, Pakistan and India almost used nuclear weapons against each other in May 1990.

USA armed Marcos in the Philippines and Noriega in Panama.

USA even created Bin Laden.

Why don't you read a little bit about some of the latin-american dictators supported by the US through the years. Or some of the other crimes commited by the US.

We will see. No doubt terrorism will splutter on, but it is not winning so far.

You are so full of yourself, I don't think you are able to see anything. Terrorism will not win, but fighting it also means fighting a clearly corrupted US gouvernment.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

nicely said dove

 

[HeiGou]

Actually, I think you are a moron and discussing with you is like discussing with a blind and deaf 5-year old who is incapable and unwilling of understanding even the easiest of concepts. The 5 year old I can excuse...

Strange you are not having more success - isn't it a little embarrassing you are being outclassed by a five year old?

How can USA (or a moron like you) justify the support of dictators on one hand, and the removal of others on the other?

Very easily I expect. Everyone older than a five year old knows perfect justice is impossible to achieve and the world is a complex place. So the real question is not whether the US supports, from time to time in a few places, dictators, but whether the US is on the whole a force for good, freedom and democracy. Which by and large it is. No one but a child expects anyone to be as morally pure as Superman.

Who gave Saddam Hussein support for decades until he became to "difficult" to deal with? USA. Who gave him chemical weapons?

No doubt the US felt that Iran was a bigger threat. Were they wrong? It looks less and less like it all the time. So what? Did they like Saddam? No. Did they produce Saddam? No. Did they put him in power? No. Until the US really does rule the world, the US will have to deal with whatever government the Middle East throws up. The US did not give him chemical weapons. An American company sold him equipment. So did German, Swiss and Swedish companies. So what?

Who supported Taliban?

Pakistan but not the US.

For years the United States has helped arm dictators -- to keep them out of the communist bloc, to keep the oil flowing, to keep the arms makers happy. And to empower themselves.

And a good thing too.

USA armed the Shah of Iran before the militants in the streets overthrew him.

And what are you claiming - that Iran has become a better place since the US was kicked out?

USA armed Suharto in Indonesia, whom used American arms to invade East Timor and repress its people.

Thus preventing a Communist take over in both Indonesia and East Timor.

USA armed the generals and colonels throughout Central America. They ruled through death squads and terror even when civilian presidents were elected.

Better than another Cuba. Your point is what?

USA armed the generals who ruled Pakistan, in violation of US law that sought to block aid to countries developing their own nuclear weapons. According to journalist Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker, Pakistan and India almost used nuclear weapons against each other in May 1990.

And your complaint is what exactly?

USA armed Marcos in the Philippines and Noriega in Panama.

And supported democracy in both countries when the risk of Communism disappeared. What is your point?

USA even created Bin Laden.

Nonsense.

You are so full of yourself, I don't think you are able to see anything. Terrorism will not win, but fighting it also means fighting a clearly corrupted US gouvernment.

Terrorism may win and it will only be defeated through repression. The US is not corrupted. It is just not very good at getting what it wants.

 

[Christian_dove]

As I said, you are a moron, and you would defend USA no matter what.

 

[Knut Hamsun]

How can USA (or a moron like you) justify the support of dictators on one hand, and the removal of others on the other?

Christian Dove:
Have you ever heard of the geopolitical philosophy called REALISM or REALPOLITIK? If not, look them up and presto! there you have your answer to your incredibly naive question (above). When you cease your adolescent rage at discovering that the world doesn't operate in a vaccum, and that there are more often than not 3 choices for a leader to make, all of them being ugly but one less ugly than the other two, than only then may you be ready to understand the way the world works. Your lofty intentions and ideals, unfortunately, have no basis in the grit and grime that is "reality".
Yes, some of the conflicts you cite to Hei Gou are indeed ugly spots on the fabric of History, but it did allow the US to win the COLD WAR. And I don't think there can be any rational debate as to how much better off the world is with the USA as the world leader than as with the USSR in the same position. So that is a classic example of how "realism" wove history-- only 2 possible outcomes, and luckily the "better" one was victorious. It's not fair, but neither is life. I will step off of my soap-box now, thank-you!

 

[Christian_dove]

Christian Dove:
Have you ever heard of the geopolitical philosophy called REALISM or REALPOLITIK? If not, look them up and presto! there you have your answer to your incredibly naive question (above). When you cease your adolescent rage at discovering that the world doesn't operate in a vaccum, and that there are more often than not 3 choices for a leader to make, all of them being ugly but one less ugly than the other two, than only then may you be ready to understand the way the world works. Your lofty intentions and ideals, unfortunately, have no basis in the grit and grime that is "reality".
Yes, some of the conflicts you cite to Hei Gou are indeed ugly spots on the fabric of History, but it did allow the US to win the COLD WAR. And I don't think there can be any rational debate as to how much better off the world is with the USA as the world leader than as with the USSR in the same position. So that is a classic example of how "realism" wove history-- only 2 possible outcomes, and luckily the "better" one was victorious. It's not fair, but neither is life. I will step off of my soap-box now, thank-you!

Sure, great answer. But that wasn't the issue at all. It is one thing to admit to atrocities for "good" reasons (something which is bad, but at least one is able to see some sort of meaning behind it).. HeiGou however, doesn't seem to think that USA ever did anything wrong anywhere to anyone. That's something completely different... Who is the realist?

 

[HeiGou]

Sure, great answer. But that wasn't the issue at all. It is one thing to admit to atrocities for "good" reasons (something which is bad, but at least one is able to see some sort of meaning behind it).. HeiGou however, doesn't seem to think that USA ever did anything wrong anywhere to anyone. That's something completely different... Who is the realist?

I have repeatedly made it clear that the US did and does do bad things. What I deny is that the US is uniquely evil or that it only does evil things. As you seem to think.

 

[Cheb]

The main difference is that you think the US has a goal of a world where democracy exists everywhere (incredibly Naive), while Christian Dove and many Muslims including me believe that this is a bunch of #$%^.
Sure you can talk when you live thousands of miles away form all the action, and you have not witnessed anything worse than a fly being squatted in front of you, but that is NOT REALITY. You believe what you are told and that is the sad reality. It is not until you really look into what your precious country stands for that you realize what reality actually is.

 

[HeiGou]

The main difference is that you think the US has a goal of a world where democracy exists everywhere (incredibly Naive), while Christian Dove and many Muslims including me believe that this is a bunch of #$%^.

And what possible reason can there be for denying it? In 1941 when the US stepped into its Global role, there were how many democracies in the world? The US and Britain and its White Dominions. A small number of Nordic states. Switzerland. The period of American domination has also been the period of democratic growth in the world. Now the US is not perfect, but they are better than, say, the French. Can we all agree on that? What did anyone else ever do for democracy?

Sure you can talk when you live thousands of miles away form all the action, and you have not witnessed anything worse than a fly being squatted in front of you, but that is NOT REALITY. You believe what you are told and that is the sad reality. It is not until you really look into what your precious country stands for that you realize what reality actually is.

Not my precious country as it happens. What reality is this? And compared to what? Algeria? Morocco? The US is not perfect, but a reasonable person would have to say there is good and bad in all of us and in all (secular) things. This includes the United States. Now I think there are quite a few good things about the role of the US. Not 100 percent, but better than most. Why does that annoy you so much?