|
WScott
´ ɑ `▽ ᑲᓇᑕ



Registered: 07/31/05
Posts: 5,713
Loc: Nacada
Last seen: 9 months, 15 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7567178 - 10/27/07 04:11 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
" "Ahmadinejad's view on nuclear bombs is that they're immoral, and he's said much in protest of them:
"I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs, politically, they're backwards. Retarded." "You have to appreciate we don't need a nuclear bomb. We don't need that. What need do we have for a bomb?" "In political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union." "
Anyway, I haven't seen any evidence for KGB being in Iran at the time but I don't think it would be too much of a stretch in believing it. The point, though, is that the CIA overthrew/replaced a president that was popular with the people and democratically elected. How would you feel, as a citizen, if some foreign country came over and put one of their people in charge for the sole reason of power of your own resources? No doubt its better than the United States invading Iran and taking the oil by brute force, but its still fukced up.
--------------------

|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: WScott]
#7568112 - 10/27/07 09:55 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
And I think that it's ridiculous that anybody would think the CIA could do such a thing. You are ascribing godlike powers to an agency that has proven itself to be fractured, barely competent and out of control. You haven't seen proof of KGB involvement? You haven't seen proof of anything.
--------------------
|
DimensionX
King of Birds


Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 5,486
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 2 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7568240 - 10/27/07 10:41 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The CIA has the power to give groups advanced weapons and technology. The power to spread propaganda to incite rebellions and create factions. They have access to more money than most countries could dream of, they can use it to arm up groups and encourage them to overthrow governments. They can also give massive bribes to officials within those countries to further destabilize it. It always seems to backfire on them eventually, i guess it just shows that money cant cure stupidity.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: DimensionX]
#7568274 - 10/27/07 10:57 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Advanced weapons? In 1950? And the KGB couldn't? Money? The KGB couldn't? Face it, a significant portion of the Iranian people wanted the shah. That's why that happened. The CIA? Not anywhere near as effective as you think.
--------------------
|
DimensionX
King of Birds


Registered: 09/26/07
Posts: 5,486
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 2 days
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7568292 - 10/27/07 11:06 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Just because the weapons don't seem advanced now doesn't mean they weren't for there time. Your right, there are potentially allot of other players on the board, each of them quite powerful. Why do you think governments put so much time, effort and money into developing effective intelligence agency's? Its because they work.
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR

Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,601
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: WScott]
#7568464 - 10/28/07 12:45 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Somewhat relevant
Quote:
Seuss said: > Are they really making nukes?
Yes, though that is a very minor concern.
> What reason do we have to believe so
I can't say without getting somebody in trouble. Call it insider trading.
> and how do we know they want to use them on us?
They don't, nor would they ever admit to having them. Again, Iran having nukes is a fairly minor concern.
I think it should be noted that Washington claims that Iran does not currently have enough centrifuges to build one, and they accuse Iran of seeking to build one, but not actually being the proccess of building any.
Edited by Disco Cat (10/28/07 01:04 AM)
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7569137 - 10/28/07 08:38 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: And I think that it's ridiculous that anybody would think the CIA could do such a thing. You are ascribing godlike powers to an agency that has proven itself to be fractured, barely competent and out of control. You haven't seen proof of KGB involvement? You haven't seen proof of anything.
I't pretty well documented that the CIA helped the Shaw overthrow the gov't of Iran. TO deny it just shows that you don't bother looking into your history books. The CIA did this all over the place... Iran, Chile... Just read up on OPERATION CONDOR. There are plenty of declassified documents showing the CIA had their hands in all of this.
The fact that the United States even APOLOGIZED for this makes you look even more blind:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/declassified.htm
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0004/19/i_ins.00.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB21/index.html
It's funny how tons of documents were declassified during the Clinton era which show the truth about our actions in the past... yet people still refuse to believe we stuck our noses in the business of all these countries.
Edited by BrAiN (10/28/07 08:50 AM)
|
a_guy_named_ai
Stranger

Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7569319 - 10/28/07 10:10 AM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
And I think that it's ridiculous that anybody would think the CIA could do such a thing. You are ascribing godlike powers to an agency that has proven itself to be fractured, barely competent and out of control. You haven't seen proof of KGB involvement? You haven't seen proof of anything.
So rediculous that the most powerful government in the world could perform a coup using secret intelligence?
No, not rediculous at all. If you think btw, that the only people looking out for American interests are Americans, think again.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile
Sure you can fault wiki all you want as a credible source.. but it's got PLENTY of sources
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." — Henry Kissinger
"Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty." — Edward M. Korry, U.S. Ambassador to Chile, upon hearing of Allende's election
"Make the economy scream [in Chile to] prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him" — Richard Nixon, orders to CIA director Richard Helms on September 15, 1970.
"It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden..." — A communique to the CIA base in Chile, issued on October 16, 1970.
The United States supports democracy.... as long as the result of that democracy benefits us.
Edited by BrAiN (10/28/07 11:16 AM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7570205 - 10/28/07 04:35 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The operative word is "helped". That does not constitute a unilateral takeover. Nor has anybody bothered to address the fact that the KGB had their own program going. Should we have just lain down and let the Soviets have their way in every conflict? Don't be absurd. That is the politics of children.
--------------------
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7570338 - 10/28/07 05:07 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Nice straw man argument. I'm not saying we should just laid down against the soviet. How nice of you to put words in my mouth.
I'm saying we helped overthrow DEMOCRATICALLY elected governments. Because that's exactly what happened. And we did more than just "help". You make it sound like we just sent them a few dollars. We supplied almost all the weapons in training to the troops who perfomed the coupes... as well as tried everything we could to destabalize the economy as much as possible. Just because our OWN troopers weren't there doesn't mean we weren't responsible in a major way. And there were plenty of coutries where we DID just straight up OVERTHROW the gov't with out own troops... I refer you to Grenada.
These coups NEVER would have been possible if it weren't for the United States MAKING them possible. That's more than just "HELPING". That's ENABLING
Doing everything possible EXCEPT using our own troops to actually stage the coup is the beauty of the CIA. They can pretty much make the coupe entirely possible for a country,. which wouldn't have been able to pull off a coup on their own... that way we can deny any involvement in it and condemn it without anyone knowing we were involved.
Are you lauding or condoning the behavior of our CIA when doing everything possible to overthrow DEMOCRATICALLY elected governments? It's not just immoral, what was done, but completely hypocritical.
It's one thing to oust a dictator like Sadam and replace it with a gov't made up of ELECTED officials.
It's another thing to oust ELECTED officials and replace it with a dictator like we did during the cold war. I'm not a fan of Marxism, but if that's what the people of Chile voted for.. that's what they should get.
Edited by BrAiN (10/28/07 05:18 PM)
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7570384 - 10/28/07 05:17 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BrAiN said: And there were plenty of coutries where we DID just straight up OVERTHROW the gov't with out own troops... I refer you to Grenada.
You aren't against the conflict in Grenada, are you?
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7570419 - 10/28/07 05:28 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No straw man and this isn't a philosophy class, it is a recounting of history. Democratically elected? Then how come it was so easy to overcome the supposed will of the people? The CIA supplied almost all the weapons? Not possible. Did they "help"? Yes, again, yes.
I'm sorry but the CIA isn't anywhere near the all powerful agency you dream of. Too bad, too. I think. Then again, given their penchant for not exactly following orders, like the State Dept., it might be best that they aren't so competent.
Grenada? Please tell me what country the troops we fought against in Grenada were from and just what they thought they were doing there. The way that looks to me, we prevented an invasion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada
Quote:
an invasion of the island nation of Grenada by the United States of America and several other nations in response to Prime Minister Maurice Bishop being illegally deposed and executed. On October 25, 1983, the United States, Barbados, Jamaica and members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States landed ships on Grenada, defeated Grenadian and Cuban resistance and overthrew the military government of Hudson Austin.
I ask again, why are you insistent that we should not have opposed the meddling of the Soviets and their puppets in areas of interest?
--------------------
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7570592 - 10/28/07 06:27 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Democratically elected? Then how come it was so easy to overcome the supposed will of the people?
Yes.. Allenda was democratically elected. PLAIN FACT.
http://foia.state.gov/Reports/HincheyReport.asp
If you want to just pick and chose what parts of history you want to believe.,.. fine... have fun living in your dream world of fiction like most other republcans. I'm not denying the USSR was trying to influence the people of Chile. They were spending just as much effort into propoganda as we were. But in the end.... in a democracy, it's what the people want. That's the beauty of OUR democracy here in the states. It's a government for the people and by the people. If the people want a more Marxist/Nationalist style of operation and their vote is the majority.. that's the way it should be.
And it's kind of hard to rebel against a government that took over by force... when you've got the most powerful nation in the world dumping ungodly amounts of money into the military who staged the coup and when you torture, arrest, and exlie people who actually DO try to fight back. This is what happens to people who tried to rebel against a coup by the military in Chile and to people who tried to expose it to the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Letelier
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6973614.stm
http://www.memoriayjusticia.cl/english/en_focus-caravan.html
Don't get the impression that it was a simple task to overthrow the Chilean government. You ask why it was so easy. WHO SAID IT WAS EASY? I sure as hell never did. Tens of thousands of people were arrested. And how to you manage to do this? By having more money and more weapons? Hmmm? Isn't this what the United States provided to Pinochet's army? YES!
The CIA doesn't need to be "All Powerful". They don't create opposition groups out of thin air that take over governments. They just need to funel shitloads of money into the most poweful opponent of a government. In this case.. a government with a president that was elected by the people. It's pretty simple... you provide the opposition with MORE money and weapons and training than the current government and bam... you make it possible for that group to take over.
Like I said.. that's the beauty of the CIA.. They didn't have to be ALL POWERFUL. I don't even know what the hell you mean by that to be honest. What they did was pretty simple and the exact OPPOSITE of democracy. You just take a group that wants to overthrow a president that was ELECTED, that can't do it on it's own... and give it enough money, resources, weapons it needs and let them do it... and then you just sit back from afar and watch as a completely legit government gets taken over by a dictator.
How can you possibly get more NON-DEMOCRATIC and HYPOCRITICAL?
We can argue all day about where to draw the line about whether or not the coup would have been completely successful without the millions of dollars in U.S. aid and propoganda. You're missing the point. THe point is plain and simple:
WE BOAST TO THE WORLD HOW GREAT DEMOCRACY IS AND WHEN ANOTHER OUNTRY'S DEMOCRACY VOICES A WAY OF LIFE THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM OURS WE SEEK TO DESTROY IT.
And don't get me confused with other leftists on the board here who think the Soviet Union had no desire and means to attack America. Anyone who thinks this apparently never has even heard of the Cuban Missle Crisis. It's one thing to assist an attempted invasion of Cuba to overthrow Castro because they posed a DIRECT THREAT to America.... being 90 miles away and having nukes pointed right at us.. But CHILE is at the very BOTTOM of south Amerca.. far far away from us and they never even came close to being a threat. The CIA's assitance wasn't because they thought this would be a staging point for the USSR to invade us. The entire assistance from the CIA was to get rid of a leader that wanted to nationalize many industries which posed an economic threat t America.
I'm not completely against America getting involed in other's affairs. Like I said... we tried to take out Castro in the 60's and it was rightly so. THey had nukes pointing right at us. Even in Iraq in 2003... I think Bush is an idiot but I think he did have good intentions when we went in because we thought SADAM was a physical threat to our friends.
But in some occasions like IRAN in the 50's and Chile in the 70s.. with so much declassified information as of lately, it's hard to deny that sometimes we get involved for more selfish reasons which is WRONG.
Edited by BrAiN (10/28/07 07:42 PM)
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: d33p]
#7570598 - 10/28/07 06:30 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d33p said:
Quote:
BrAiN said: And there were plenty of coutries where we DID just straight up OVERTHROW the gov't with out own troops... I refer you to Grenada.
You aren't against the conflict in Grenada, are you?
Don't there have to be TWO armies fighting in order to consider it a conflict?
--------------------
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: Silversoul]
#7570616 - 10/28/07 06:36 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
d33p said:
Quote:
BrAiN said: And there were plenty of coutries where we DID just straight up OVERTHROW the gov't with out own troops... I refer you to Grenada.
You aren't against the conflict in Grenada, are you?
Don't there have to be TWO armies fighting in order to consider it a conflict?
Around 2,000 well armed and entrenched grenadians/cubans don't count?
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7570660 - 10/28/07 06:48 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Brain, why does it seem like you either ignore or seriously downplay the effects of the soviet's meddling in Chile.
-------------------- I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends. bang bang
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: d33p]
#7570670 - 10/28/07 07:26 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
People like WScottsdale are trying to explain to you, zappa, that situations like the coup in Iran are similar. It doesn't matter if we directly used our military to invade or if we just used the same manipulative ways as we did in Chile to make the coup happen.
You're missing the big picture.
We're arguing over petty things like exactly HOW involved America was in trying to overthrow a democratically elected president in Iran and forgetting the fact that we *WERE* involved.
You ask me how did the people of Chile let this coup happen if the president was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED. In Chile's case, the military coup managed to permanently ward off any opposition.
In the case of Iran which was similar, the people who democratically elected their overthrown leader *DIDN'T* let this happen. It took over 20 years, but they finally got pissed off enough
Were the KGB also trying to get involved? Yes! I'm not denying that, but again the people democratically ELECTED their Marxist leader. If the people of Iran didn't want this and the USSR financially and militarily backed a coup to install a Marxist leader, they USSR would have gotten the same treatment as we did in 1979. Those religious nuts over there don't stand for as much intervention as the South Americans do. Just look at what happened whe the USSR managed to actually install their own government in Afghanistan in the 1980's.
The USSR acted just as immorally as we did all throughout the Cold War. I'm not giving them any golden tickets. But you can't deny that our involvement in these situations wasn't as bad.
Some of you people out there seem to think the 1979 hostage situation was just because Iran was full of terrorists. Killing innocent people like what's going on in Iraq right now to gain power makes is what you a terrorist... and maybe Iran really IS funding these terrorists. Who know's.. I don't believe OR deny it. But just step in an Iranian's shoes in 1979. Taking over the embassy of a country that poured millions of dollars into overthrowing leaders that your majority elected is just a relatiation... not terrorism.
This goes not just to you, zappaisgod, but any of you guys who think that the 1979 hostage crisis wasn't blowback from the coup in the 50's. If Fred Thompsons got elected in 2008 and russia gave 10 billion dollars of assistance to Hillary to stage a bloody coup and take over the American government by force... Would you be a terrorist if you rallied a bunch of citizens to take over the Russian embassy in Washington DC?
There are always going to be terrorists out there trying to blow up the big dogs to get a muslim state. They're never going to win. People ultimately want their freedom. They just gain more and more momentum because their cause seems more and more justified to uneducated people when we keep sticking our noses in people's businesses. Occasionally you DO have to send your troops in and kick some ass like in Afghanistan when they were harboring al Queda. But we never would have been a target for Al Queda if we just would have butted out. Iraq may have taken over Kuqait in 1991, but Saudia Arabia and other countries would have been able to whoop Sadam's ass eventually. Should we have just sat back and let it happen? I don't know. Maybe. We let it happen all the time. Why is it... the U.S. only seems to get involved in defending nations when those nations serve great economic interests to us?
And maybe Iran IS trying to become a superpower again. Maybe they are funding people to attack us. I'm not saying it's right but it IS a relaliation against our own meddling in their affairs. We wouldn't stand for anyone else trying to fuck with us so why should another country have to put up with it? If we just leave them alone I don't think they're going to try to launch an attack against America or ISREAL. I think they just want their DIGNITY and they'd be happy with this alone. That's all anyone wants... is to feel proud to be from their country and it's hard to do this when everyone keeps trying to stick their noses in your business. If we just treat other country's with respect and stop telling them how to live, maybe we will be able to live in peace and harmony. Maybe then it will be a lot easier to tell the difference between a ruler who's an asshole to his own people and the rulers who REALLY want to take over the world like Hitler. Bad things will always happen in this world. You'll always have Hitlers. If we all just mind our own business, then it will be easier to identify them and rally the world against them if you practice what you preach. If you want to fight an evil enemy, then you need not to fight them just to keep your own interests intact but you need to fight them with a clear conscience... and for the right reasons. If you do this, you'll find yourself with every other nation standing behind you, and without any doubt about your righteousness, not with only 51% of your OWN country behind you.
In theory, this all makes sense.... but the problem is this world isn't perfect. Every nation has blood on it's hands and a big stain on it's soul. We've gotten ourselves into the situation we're in and it's just going to get worse if we don't try to find a way to get along. That's the REAL challenge; not how long you can fight terrorists for, how many people you can get to believe your side of the story, but how to start off the new world with a CLEAN SLATE. Isn't this the ultimate goal for humanity?
We're not going to get there with force alone.
I don't have the answers, but I'm sure the only way to get to this goal is to find another way other than by just keeping on fighting.
Edited by BrAiN (10/28/07 07:45 PM)
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: d33p]
#7570671 - 10/28/07 07:27 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d33p said: Brain, why does it seem like you either ignore or seriously downplay the effects of the soviet's meddling in Chile.
I never denied this involvement. But the USSR didn't just INSTALL a Marxist leader. Their own citizens elected him. I'd be singing a different story if the USSR just overthrew the gov't with their OWN leader in their own coup like they did in Afghanistan in 1979.
Why are you putting words in my mouth?
Edited by BrAiN (10/28/07 07:37 PM)
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: So, whats the deal with Iran? [Re: BrAiN]
#7570851 - 10/28/07 08:17 PM (16 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB126/index.htm
It gets interesting around the middle of DOCUMENT #5. It's a history complied by the CIA itself about the situation in Iran in 1953. It DOES confirm the soviet's meddling in Iranian affairs as well as our own. It gets really interesting because it talks about some sort of operation but a lot of the details are blanked out pages at a time. After all the white space it goes on about how the "Operation Ajax" was approved by Eisenhower himself.
The true details I guess we'll never know until those censored parts are made available.
But I still give more credit to the CIA than zappa seems to. The CIA isn't an organization full of wizards, but they're full of some pretty fuckin smart people that know when and where to spend money.. smart enough to be able to give enough of a nudge at the right time to make the fate of a country go the right way. If you think they weren't majorly involved in these coups then what the hell do you think they WERE doing the entire cold war with all their resources? Just twiddling their thumbs?
If another country had been the USSR's main contender in the cold war and America was some Marginal country used as a pawn. Don't you think the resentment we'd have felt towards the USSR and this other arbitrary country (as well as a possible attack on their country's embassies) would have been justified just a LITTLE?
... It's not neccessarily that a big chunk of the world hates us just because we're America. It's not our freedom, our ideals or what we stand for that makes people get pissed at us. It's the fact that we're one of the big dogs in a world run by nonperfect beings. Whoever the Big dog is... whether it be US, Russia, Iran, Mexico, Tacoland, Lalaland, etc, that person who is the big dog is always going to get challenged and is going to have to comprimise their ethics to stay on top.
My whole argument here is that less powerful countries' resentment towards America IS warranted in many cases and anyone who thinks of himself as an intelligent person should at least admit that our country is responsibe for some injustices... whether or not you really case is a different story.
That's my problem with people who won't ADMIT that middle east resentment isn't caused a LITTLE bit by our own actions. These people get too wrapped up in trying to argue that we weren't involved and when we PROVE to them that we WERE, thet abandon their argument and switch saying "Oh yea? Well.. the USSR did it TOO!". If you're going to switch arguments like this at least CONCEDE that there are enough facts that our own CIA fucks with other people.
In contrast, my problem with Americans who see their own country as the great evil. We're not evil. We have good intentions and innocent people get killed which definately kills the notion of us ever being the "good guy", but the bees nest we've stirred up as proven that the people we've pissed off are really just as wrong. if not TRULY evil. These are people who will INTENTIONALLY kill women and children out of desperation proving that THEY'RE WORSE than the "Great Evil" they're fighting. That's why the situation in the Middle East is so much more explosive than any shit that went down in South America... we pissed off people who use RELIGION to justify ANYTHING.
Starting a war with Atheist Communists doesn't scare me. When you beat 'em.. they're beat. They fight for their countries and you can defeat a country. Once you piss off a religion... man... good luck fighting that until the end.
Edited by BrAiN (10/28/07 08:34 PM)
|
|