| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  Red Vein Kratom  Premium Bali Kratom Powder  Buy Bali Kratom Powder |
| |||||||
 Cornholio A liberal guy(on  Registered: 01/13/03 Posts: 845 Loc: Austin, TX Last seen: 19 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
shakta said:
How about some examples of this notorious history of regime change? Cornholio said: Panama, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iran, Guatemala, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Indonesia, and the former Zaire. pinksharkmark said: Learn some history. The US didn't install Pol Pot. Where did I say the US installed Pol Pot? The US supported a coup d'etat which put General Lon Nol in charge of Cambodia. This is an example of a US regime change that failed. And shakta, in 1963, the CIA engineered the overthrow and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam. The new regime never gained the support of the South Vietnamese people and was yet another failed US regime change. I'm not sure why you claim "Vietnam, and Cambodia never happened". pinksharkmark said: And the Sandinistas in Nicaragua lost in a fair democratic election that was probably the most carefully scrutinized election ever held in Latin America. In 1909, the US engineered a regime change in Nicaragua by helping to depose General Jose Zelaya. That regime wasn't too successful as evidenced by the rise in popularity of the Sandinistas. But even after the Sandinistas gained power, the US did plenty to bring them down before the elections, such as the Iran-Contra scandal and other questionable, if not illegal things. pinksharkmark said: As for the Dominican Republic -- you must be confusing us with some other country. The legally elected government was overthrown here by a military junta. There was civil war and chaos. The US sent troops, the situation was stabilized, internationally-supervised democratic elections were held, and Dominicans had their freedom once again. True, but you left out a VERY important point for some reason: The US didn't bother to get involved in the civil war until the legally elected government was about to regain power. Then it sided against Bosch. After Bosch's supporters were humiliated/killed by the US, he lost in the next election. pinksharkmark said: You won't find any Dominicans complaining about the help the US gave us. I found PLENTY of Dominicans/ex-Dominicans complaining about the "help" the US provided. It all depends on whose side you were on: if you supported the democratically elected Constitutional Party (Bosch) then you were against the US invasion, while if you supported the overthrow of the democratically elected party by the "Loyalists", then you were for the US invasion. Besides, not to be rude to your country, but I don't know if I'd call the Dominican Republic a success story.  pinksharkmark said: Here's a hint -- if you are interested in truth rather than polemics, try reading someone other than Noam Chomsky as a sole source. Perhaps you should read someone other than your conservative source.  And shakta, here's an article with a table showing our success rate at regime changes. 
-------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Strumpling Neuronaut Registered: 10/11/02 Posts: 7,571 Loc: Hyperspace Last seen: 12 years, 12 days |
| ||||||
|
Hasn't anybody noticed that Democracy isn't even possible in the United States?
-------------------- Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me. In addition: SHPONGLE
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Cornholio writes:
True, but you left out a VERY important point for some reason: The US didn't bother to get involved in the civil war until the legally elected government was about to regain power. Then it sided against Bosch. Absolutely false. Not even close to describing what actually happened. Where are you getting this information? After Bosch's supporters were humiliated/killed by the US, he lost in the next election. ???? The US was killing Bosch's supporters?!?!?! Bullshit. As for "humiliating" them, what does that mean? Marines standing on street corners thumbing their noses at Dominicans and chanting "Nya nya nya NYA nya" ? I ask again, where on earth are you getting this load of crap from? I found PLENTY of Dominicans/ex-Dominicans complaining about the "help" the US provided. Where? Source please. I can assure you that in the almost sixteen years I have been discussing politics with Dominicans from all walks of life, I have yet to find one who was against the US intervention, and that includes those who voted for Bosch and his party in every election in which he ran. It all depends on whose side you were on: if you supported the democratically elected Constitutional Party (Bosch) then you were against the US invasion, while if you supported the overthrow of the democratically elected party by the "Loyalists", then you were for the US invasion. Try to understand this simple fact -- the military junta overthrew the democratically elected Constitutional Party and Bosch. Without the US intervention, there would have been no elections -- just a succession of junta after junta seizing power. Okay, I bumped the thread with my most recent post about this. It's the thread titled "Interesting Thought". My post is number 83 in the thread. If you are displaying twenty posts per page, it is the third post on the fifth page of the thread. pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
Cornholio A liberal guy(on Registered: 01/13/03 Posts: 845 Loc: Austin, TX Last seen: 19 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote:Practically every single web page I found when searching for "history of the Dominican Republic" showed this to be the case. Try it yourself. I didn't have to "dig" for these. Either every site confirmed this, or failed to provide the details of US involvement. I believe the following sites are well respected sources: The History Channel The Encyclopedia of World History Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Syracuse University, History of the Dominican Republic Here's a few more sites from the Dominican Republic: DOMINICAN OVERVIEW & HISTORICAL SUMMARY Dominican Republic General Info There's such an enormous amount of evidence backing me up, that I don't believe you were ignorant enough to say "where are you getting this information?" Quote:Read the very first link above from The History Channel. 3,000 people were killed. A loss is always humiliating. US troops greatly assisted the anti-Bosch forces. While US forces were "officially neutral", this clearly was not the case based on the fighting they did. Quote:Dominicans Recall U.S. Invasion U.S. invasion changed the Dominican Republic Before I waste too much time, let me just remind you that since the US invasion, over 1 million people fled the Dominican Republic. Don't you think there's anyone who might have something bad to say??? I realize that most of these people migrated to the US, but no one's criticizing the US for its economic conditions. Quote:If you say so. Quote:Thanks, but I read it before I made my last post. And I don't think anything I said really conflicts with anything you said, it simply adds important information. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Cornholio A liberal guy(on Registered: 01/13/03 Posts: 845 Loc: Austin, TX Last seen: 19 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Oh, and I'm glad to see that you accept the evidence I provided on the failed regime changes for the other countries I mentioned.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Cornholio writes:
Practically every single web page I found when searching for "history of the Dominican Republic" showed this to be the case. Try it yourself. I didn't have to "dig" for these. Either every site confirmed this, or failed to provide the details of US involvement. I believe the following sites are well respected sources: What was the point of including those? There is no detail in them at all. One of them dedicates a single sentence to the incident, for pete's sake! As to the US not intervening until it was "apparent" that Juan Bosch would be reinstalled as president, that is sheer speculation. As your other more detailed links show, the situation was much less cut-and-dried than that. It was in no way a sure thing that Bosch would be returned to power. I suggest you read your own links. There's such an enormous amount of evidence backing me up, that I don't believe you were ignorant enough to say "where are you getting this information?" Those links are not "evidence", they are full of erroneous information (you have surely noted how they contradict each other on several matters of FACT, not opinion) and unsupported categorization. For example, some of the links claim that the coup ousting Bosch was a "US-backed" action. Not a shred of evidence, just the bald assertion that it was so, despite the evidence in the more detailed links of how Kennedy felt towards Bosch. On the other hand, I must admit I was unaware of just exactly how much worthless bullshit there was out there on the internet in regard to this incident. I should have taken into consideration the fact that a non-resident would not have the in-depth knowledge as easily available to him as a Dominican would. I guess I can't really blame you for holding the opinion you do. Read the very first link above from The History Channel. 3,000 people were killed. Not by American forces. I presume you did read your own link? The one called "fighting"? (By the way, that is the most comprehensive link you provided in that sorry collection, and it is a good one). There was freaking civil war for five freaking years! Of course there were thousands killed. I found PLENTY of Dominicans/ex-Dominicans complaining about the "help" the US provided. A demonstration in front of the US embassy that had "dozens" of participants, and an essay by an expatriate Dominican Lefty (who can't even get the number of US troops involved anywhere near correct) qualifies as plenty, does it? This in a country with a population of 8.5 million. Okay. Bottom line is this -- The first democratically-elected government the Dominican Republic had since 1924 was overthrown by force -- a familiar story in Latin America, unfortunately. The country was cast into turmoil, violence, and chaos for five years. The US came in, stopped the fighting, organized elections, then left. The Dominican Republic once again had a democratically-elected government. Let's face it, if Bosch had won the election rather than Balaguer, no one would be saying a word. But since a Lefty lost in the most carefully internationally-scrutinized election ever held in Latin America until that time, it must all be blamed on the United States. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
Cornholio writes:
Oh, and I'm glad to see that you accept the evidence I provided on the failed regime changes for the other countries I mentioned. I leave it to others to find the holes in your "evidence" of failed "regime change" on that list. All I will say is that if there is so much bullshit surrounding the facts of the Dominican Republic incident, which involved actual warship blockade and US troops landing on the soil of the country named, it wouldn't surprise me at all that the charges of "regime change" in the countries where no troops were stationed are equally bogus. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Cornholio A liberal guy(on Registered: 01/13/03 Posts: 845 Loc: Austin, TX Last seen: 19 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote:The point was that every one of them was from a credible source and confirmed the purpose of US intervention was to prevent the democratically elected leader from regaining power. If you seriously refuse to accept "The History Channel" and/or the other sources as credible, then arguing with you is pointless. I didn't post "Joe Shmo's" opinion for a reason. I'll leave it to the other readers to decide for themselves if they are willing to trust The History Channel or not. Just to see if anyone else is even following this argument or not, let's try this: (please be honest) Quote:Fine, I'll concede this because the important point is that the US took sides and fought against his forces. Quote:Again, if you don't trust credible sources, I can't do any better than that. I realize Bosch was liked at first by the US, but this isn't a contradiction, as opinions changed after it was decided he was too leftist. Kennedy was dead by the time the US got involved. Besides, you argue that since you've been there for 16 years you know how people felt about something that happened nearly 40 years ago. I'll bet people in Germany felt a lot different about Hitler 40 years after his death than they did at the time he was Fuerer. Quote:Ok, let's look at the link you liked. It confirmed that US forces fought against and killed Constitutionalists, er I mean "rebels". Interesting how in most articles, it was the "Loyalists" vs the "Constitutionalists", but in the article you liked, it was the "Loyalists" vs the "rebels".  Quote:Compare that with a rally in support of the war in Iraq. 150 people in a country of 250 million attended to show their support of the Iraqi war. It doesn't mean only 150 people in the country supported the war. Besides, what about the 1 million people who left the Dominican Republic after 1965? Things weren't so rosy after the US "fixed" things, which is the whole point of this argument. Quote:I won't argue with anything you just said here. The point of this whole argument is to prove that not all US backed regime changes have been successful. I don't mean any disrespect, but most history links would say the the Dominican Republic is NOT a success story. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Cornholio A liberal guy(on Registered: 01/13/03 Posts: 845 Loc: Austin, TX Last seen: 19 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote:Interesting article. It says we are now justified in supporting evil dictatorships if they help us "in our life-and-death struggle against radical Islam", just as we were justified supporting evil dictatorships if they helped us fight Communism. Hmmm, I seriously question both our goal of wiping out the "radical" Islamics and of supporting evil dictatorships. I mean, is it really mandatory for us to wipe these groups out at any cost in order to achieve peace? Or can we peacefully coexist with them? I really don't think we've ever even considered the latter option as a possibility. It seems like we believe in perpetual war for perpetual peace, which is a bunch of crap in my opinion.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 8 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
That History Channel article is bullshit because it makes casual assertions with absolutely no evidence rather than sticking to factual reporting --
"Johnson initially claimed that the primary purpose of the U.S. military operation was to evacuate Americans and other foreign nationals, but in truth the U.S. soldiers were sent to prevent the restoration of the exiled president of the country, Juan Bosch." Really? Says who? No quotes from anyone supporting this statement -- merely a baldfaced assertion that this was the case. If they had said, "in truth, the US soldiers were sent to prevent Fidel Castro from invading the country," or "in truth, the US soldiers were sent to prevent Haitian agitators from crossing the border," would you believe it? Who wrote that article for the History Channel? Has he ever set foot in the country? Who did he interview? For pete's sakes, not even Juan Bosch himself ever took the stance that article did! If you seriously refuse to accept "The History Channel" and/or the other sources as credible, then arguing with you is pointless. If you seriously refuse to accept the much more detailed articles I provided, some of them written by Dominicans (and Dominicans who were critical of the United States, at that -- read the articles and you will see this), then arguing with you is pointless. The statements from Dominicans who were here at the time it happened, some of them actively aligned with one side or the other, counts more than a single unsupported assertion from a television station. Fine, I'll concede this because the important point is that the US took sides and fought against his forces. The Constitutionalists were not Bosch's forces. Bosch was in exile and remained in exile. He had no control over the multifaceted "Constitutionalists", and directed none of their actions. They were a polyglot group (including even some, though not many, Communists -- Bosch himself was no Communist, as even Kennedy and Johnson were aware), factionalized and in violent disagreement over one another on key issues, as the links I provided (and even some of the ones you provided) show. The fact that their public stance was that they favored reinstating Bosch does not make them "his forces". Again, if you don't trust credible sources, I can't do any better than that. Some of the links you provided were worth reading, as I pointed out. The first group of links was essentially worthless. Again, I say my sources -- the people who were actually involved and the many MANY detailed books and articles those people have written about that time -- are more credible than most of the ones you provided. Besides, you argue that since you've been there for 16 years you know how people felt about something that happened nearly 40 years ago. As another of the links you provided pointed out, Dominicans are VERY passionate, opinionated, and knowledgeable about their history and their politics. I have had many, MANY conversations with Dominicans about everything from Trujillo to the Three Sisters to Bosch to Balaguer to Fernandez and more -- including the events of 1962-1966. While not every single one holds exactly the same opinion (some I have spoken to voted for Bosch every chance they got, for example), every one WITHOUT EXCEPTION was grateful that the US ended the civil war and arranged elections. The Bosch supporters were of course displeased that Bosch lost that election, and almost all the Boschites are vehement that Balaguer "rigged" at least two and probably three later elections (especially the 1994 election!), but not even the most radical Boschite I have spoken to (or read an article from) has ever tried to tell me that the US/OAC supervised election was anything other than scrupulously honest. Dominicans, having been either colonial subjects or the pawns of dictators for almost all of their history, are great believers in the democratic process. Further, every one (again without exception, although some of them were kind of sullen about admitting it) told me that had the US not intervened, it was almost a certainty there would have been years more fighting, thousands more dead, and a never-ending series of coups and counter-coups. Don't you dare presume to tell me how Dominicans feel, Cornholio. I extend an open invitation to you to visit me here any time and talk to Dominicans in their fifties and sixties -- the ones who lived through that time. How's your Spanish? It confirmed that US forces fought against and killed Constitutionalists, er I mean "rebels". Interesting how in most articles, it was the "Loyalists" vs the "Constitutionalists", but in the article you liked, it was the "Loyalists" vs the "rebels". As I have pointed out, the fighting was not restricted to that between Constitutionalists and Loyalists -- it was not that cut and dried. There were a lot of factions, fighting between themselves as well as against the junta. Some were simple rioters and criminals with no particular political agenda at all. Civil wars are chaotic affairs -- there is rarely a simple A vs B divide. As one of your own links says -- "The revolutionists called themselves Constitutionalists, the movement was a mix of lower ranking officers (and therefore younger), political opposition groups, and the mob on the streets. Some truly hoped that violence would lead to a restoration of 1963 constitution and democracy. Others were communists who had temporarily joined in with? the reformers. However the largest group were mere rioters who took advantage of the weapons being passed out on street corners in the capitol and took up looting with the protection of their new firearms. These weapons passed out to the populace by the rebel forces would prove a problem for Dominicans long after 1965. " Here's more from that same link -- "Twice in the last 6 years communist insurgencies had tried to take the country. Most notably in 1959 when Castro landed a a small guerrilla force too "liberate" the island. It was quickly crushed.. Even Truijillo had flirted with the Soviet Union going so far as to allow Soviet radio broadcasts. Yet the humanitarian and historical concern cannot be over looked, as it has been by many historians.? The country had been embroiled in conflict for much of it's post-Trujillo period and had made little reform. Many Dominicans were starving to death and out of work In the rural countryside the conditions were so bad that some girls were being sold into slavery." "More importantly in the diplomatic sense was the creation of the Government of National Reconstruction or GRN. This government combined some Constitituionalists with some members of the Junta established on the 28th along with a large body of "neutrals" and included a large number of popular Dominican politicians. This body showed signs of actually lasting and the US officially severed ties with the Loyalistas and stopped them from conducting air force or naval operations against the rebels. President Lyndon Johnson was furious about the unhindered Loyalista rampage against the Radio Station in the North of the city and ordered all support to the Loyalistas to stop - the US was to be officially? neutral." I ask again -- do you bother to actually read the articles in the links you provide? Besides, what about the 1 million people who left the Dominican Republic after 1965? What about them? Things weren't so rosy after the US "fixed" things, which is the whole point of this argument. Oh my goodness! Things weren't "so rosy" after five years of chaos, looting, starvation, the selling of girls into slavery; in a country that had first been subjugated and plundered for centuries by various foreign powers and then completely raped by the devil Trujillo -- well, DUH!!! The whole point of this argument is that the Dominican people (thanks to the US) were once again able to freely elect a government of their own choosing and get on with their lives. With the benefit of hindsight, some now say that they would have been better off electing Bosch rather than Balaguer. Perhaps this is true, perhaps not. The point is that it was the entire Dominican populace who made the choice, not a military junta or a civilian junta or an armed mob. Try to imagine just how "rosy" things would have been after another five (or more) years of civil war, with one coup after another after another. The point of this whole argument is to prove that not all US backed regime changes have been successful. I don't mean any disrespect, but most history links would say the the Dominican Republic is NOT a success story. Then you haven't looked at the right history links. The Dominican Republic has the fastest growing economy in Latin America (probably due to the large degree of freedom they have -- as you are well aware) as well as one of the longest (possibly the longest -- I am unsure) uninterrupted stretches of democratically-elected governments in Latin America. Compared to the majority of Latin American ex-colonial countries, it is doing well. It is certainly doing better than it would have had the civil war continued for years. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Cornholio A liberal guy(on Registered: 01/13/03 Posts: 845 Loc: Austin, TX Last seen: 19 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote:Just because the History Channel article was a summary rather than an in depth analysis, doesn't mean it's bullshit (see my next link below). Quote:Ok, I'll give you quotes from one of the most respected US Senators of the time who was directly involved in the US decision making, William Fulbright. Here are his conclusions (if this still isn't good enough for you, he backs them up in the body of the link I provided): "My specific conclusions regarding the crisis in Santo Domingo are as follows: First. The United States intervened forcibly in the Dominican Republic in the last week of April 1965 not primarily to save American lives, as was then contended, but to prevent the victory of a revolutionary movement which was judged to be Communist-dominated. The decision to land thousands of marines on April 28 was based primarily on the fear of "another Cuba" in Santo Domingo. Second. This fear was based on fragmentary and inadequate evidence. There is no doubt that Communists participated in the Dominican revolution on the rebel side, probably to a greater extent after than before the landing of U.S. marines on April 28, but just as it cannot be proved that the Communists would not have taken over the revolution neither can it be proved that they would have. There is little basis in the evidence offered the committee for the assertion that the rebels were Communist-dominated or certain to become so; on the contrary, the evidence suggests a chaotic situation in which no single faction was dominant at the outset and in which everybody, including the United States, had opportunities to influence the shape and course of the rebellion. Third. The United States let pass its best opportunities to influence the course of events. The best opportunities were on April 25, when Juan Bosch's partv, the PRD, requested a "United States presence," and on April 27, when the rebels, believing themselves defeated, requested United States mediation for a negotiated settlement. . . . Fourth. U.S. policy toward the Dominican Republic shifted markedly to the right between September 1963 and April 1965. In 1963, the United States strongly supported Bosch and the PRD as enlightened reformers; in 1965 the United States opposed their return to power on the unsubstantiated ground that a Bosch or PRD government would certainly, or almost certainly, become Communist dominated. Thus the United States turned its back on social revolution in Santo Domingo and associated itself with a corrupt and reactionary military oligarchy. Fifth. U.S. policy was marred by a lack of candor and by misinformation. The former is illustrated by official assertions that U.S. military intervention was primarily for the Purpose of saving American lives; the latter is illustrated by exaggerated reports of massacres and atrocities by the rebels-reports which no one has been able to verify. It was officially asserted, for example, by the President in a press conference on June 17 according to an official State Department bulletin-that "some 1,500 innocent people were murdered and shot, and their heads cut off." There is no evidence to support this statement, . . . Sixth. Responsibility for the failure of American policy in Santo Domingo lies primarily with those who advised the president. In the critical days between April 25 and April 28, these officials sent the president exaggerated reports of the danger of a Communist takeover in Santo Domingo and, on the basis of these, recommended U.S. massive military intervention. . . . Seventh. Underlying the bad advice and unwise actions of the United States was the fear of another Cuba. The specter of a second Communist state in the Western Hemisphere-and its probable repercussions within the United States and possible effects on the careers of those who might be held responsible-seems to have been the most important single factor in distorting the judgment of otherwise sensible and competent men." Quote:Again, I don't disagree with hardly any of the facts you provided. I'm providing additional, very relevant information. Quote:I don't disagree with this either. But as Senator Fulbright said, "some of our officials seem to have forgotten that virtually all reform movements attract some Communist Support, that there is an important difference between Communist support and Communist control of a political movement, that it is quite possible to compete with the Communists for influence in a reform movement rather than abandon it to them". Quote:Once again, I don't dispute this. But aren't some people just a little upset with the fact that the US "associated itself with a corrupt and reactionary military oligarchy"? Do you want more links? Quote:I wouldn't dare do that. I provided links from Dominicans who dared tell you how they feel. Quote:I don't disagree. Quote:Yes, and I'm not disagreeing with them. Quote:Things weren't so rosy for a LOOOONG time after that. Quote:Again, I'm not disagreeing. But this doesn't disprove the fact that the US "associated itself with a corrupt and reactionary military oligarchy" in order "to prevent the victory of a revolutionary movement" (quotes from Senator William Fulbright). Quote:It's about time, dude.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
shakta Infidel Registered: 06/03/03 Posts: 2,633 Last seen: 19 years, 15 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I don't know the answer man. It seemed to work against communism though. I see your point, but think about this. If a groups main goal it to kill you, how do you peacefully coexist with them? This is most certainly what groups like Al Qaeda want to do. Their goal is to force the rest of the world to be Islamic, or die. I don't see anyway to coexist with that myself.
| |||||||
 Xlea321 Stranger Registered: 02/25/01 Posts: 9,134 |
| ||||||
|
Giving the palestinians justice would be a start.
By showing courage and compassion for people rather than slaughtering, maiming and bombing them. Bin Laden does explain in simple terms exactly what his grievances are. Contrary to what Bush says he doesn't say "We want to kill americans because we are against freedom and hollywood films". Surely the approach has to be taking away all reasons to support Al-qaeda. -------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
| |||||||
|
luvdemshrooms Two inch dick..but it spins!?    Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: Sso, we should show courage and compassion for.... which group? Seeing as there are several conflicts going on around the globe at any given moment, who decides which group? And then how do you deal with those who support the other group? Quote: Quote:Surely you would then have pissed off someone else. The answer is for a countries leadership to worry first and foremost about those who vote for them. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Cornholio A liberal guy(on Registered: 01/13/03 Posts: 845 Loc: Austin, TX Last seen: 19 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote:Do you really think Al Queda's main goal is to kill Americans and dominate the world? I think there's more evidence showing Bush's goal is world domination. As Alex said, Bin Laden explained in painstaking detail what Al Queda's grievances are, and that he only resorted to terrorism as a last resort to try and protect the lifestyle that he believes in. You should seriously consider reading Bin Laden's letter to at least understand his point of view. I'm truly amazed that the mainstream media never published it. I'm not saying that you should necessarily agree with his letter, but just read it to understand his real point of view rather than the one the Bush admininstration would like us to believe, that "they hate freedom and democracy". By the way shakta, do you now agree with "the huge list of regime changes the US has done that did not benefit the people of the country they happened in"??? I went through a lot of trouble to prove it for you. Again, here's the article with the scorecard. Let's have a beer sometime. 
--------------------
| |||||||
|
shakta Infidel Registered: 06/03/03 Posts: 2,633 Last seen: 19 years, 15 days |
| ||||||
|
I agree with the principle. I still need to research each case to form my own opinion though. Back to terrorists. I am not just talking about bin Laden, but all of them. Anyway, I don't buy their leave us alone, and we will leave you alone BS at all. They teach their kids that we are the great Satan and that we should be destroyed. They also believe that Islam should be the only religion practiced, and are willing to kill anyone who doesn't agree. I think the way the Taliban treated the people of Afghanistan is a prime example of this.
| |||||||
|
Cornholio A liberal guy(on Registered: 01/13/03 Posts: 845 Loc: Austin, TX Last seen: 19 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote:Our own Pat Robertson (who is good friends with Bush Sr) feels the same way about Christianity. He's on a mission to spread Christianity throughout the world, and has even tried to influence our Government to invade countries that are opposing his Christian ministries. It's sick. And no different from what you're talking about. I think Islam has more than enough evidence to make a very strong case that we are the Great Satin (just read Bin Laden's letter). But we feel others are the "Axis of Evil". Who's right? Personally, I think a strong case can be made for both sides. It's just like the discussions on these boards between Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans point out all the evils of the Democrats, and the Democrats turn around and point out all the evils of Republicans. I think both are probably right, but neither side is willing to accept their own faults, but just turn around and point the finger back at the other side instead.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
monoamine umask 077(nonefo  Registered: 09/06/02 Posts: 3,095 Loc: Jacksonville,FL Last seen: 17 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: That's the problem-you're grouping everyone who doesn't agree with the U.S. agenda under a little convient blanket term "terrorist". Not all "terrorists" have the same agenda.For example-some Palenstinian "terrorists" are just fighting for land that was wrongly taken from them and want to reestablish reasonable boundries that are only a couple decades old. It's pretty ironic that their Isralie counterparts are seldom called "terrorists" by the western media or the admininstration. And why the hell is "terrorist" thrown around like it is? The Bush administration needs to get a dictionary. -------------------- People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything... Douglas Adams
| |||||||
|
Cornholio A liberal guy(on Registered: 01/13/03 Posts: 845 Loc: Austin, TX Last seen: 19 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
--------------------
| |||||||
|
GernBlanston unintended sideeffect  Registered: 05/28/03 Posts: 842 Loc: OR Last seen: 1 year, 7 months |
| ||||||
-------------------- There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. -- Howard Zinn
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Red Vein Kratom Premium Bali Kratom Powder Buy Bali Kratom Powder |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Arming Iraq and the Path to War |  dee_N_ae |
1,020 | 3 | 04/18/03 09:10 PM by JohnnyRespect |
|
 |
iraq (  1 2 3 all ) |
 Lallafa |
2,562 | 46 | 08/21/02 08:06 PM by Phred |
|
|
Polish Troops in Iraq find recently produced French Missiles ( 1 2 all ) |
 wingnutx |
2,660 | 32 | 10/05/03 01:11 AM by Xlea321 |
|
|
Who armed Iraq? ( 1 2 all ) |
 luvdemshrooms |
2,668 | 27 | 03/21/03 07:52 AM by luvdemshrooms |
|
|
Support US war on IRAQ ( 1 2 all ) |
 LordMorham |
4,583 | 29 | 09/20/02 09:56 AM by LordMorham |
|
 |
Turkish leader warns of terror wave if EU rejects membership |  Great_Satan |
422 | 0 | 12/13/04 05:58 PM by Great_Satan |
|
|
US running scared of Iraq elections ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
Xlea321 |
7,134 | 77 | 02/05/04 06:07 PM by mntlfngrs |
|
 |
Bush: Iraq Part of 'Global Democratic Revolution' | SquattingMarmot |
618 | 1 | 11/06/03 04:51 PM by Psilocybeingzz |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 6,607 topic views. 2 members, 0 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||