Spain's Mistake

[KrustyKidd]

As they say, you reap as you sow.

And if not for the US intervening around the globe, you would be carving those words onto on a frozen potato in some work camp in Sasketchewan, looking over your shoulder in fear of being seen doing it.

There is no such thing as 'pure good,' you have to take a bit of bad with it. Secrets and sacrifices are not only a tool of the evil.

[jccc]

And if not for the US intervening around the globe, you would be carving those words onto on a frozen potato in some work camp in Sasketchewan, looking over your shoulder in fear of being seen doing it.

Please please oh Please prove this to me!! I have heard it time & time again & it still makes me laugh!! You are saying all these countries (USSR, Mideast,Viet Nam,Panama) were all planning to attack Canada??? Why am I just finding out about this!!! LOL

To those who think the war on drugs & the war on terrorism are not the same, think again. These drug dealers & cartels are not terrorists??????These guys have prolly killed 10 times the innocents that the AQ has!! What the hell do you thinks funds the AQ, church fundraisers?? The war on drugs is even a tougher war to fight than terrorism, & just as unwinnable!!!! So pull your heads out of your A$$e$ & come to the realization that you can fight drugs & terrorism & possibly control a small portion, but it will always remain & never be stopped or really even slowed down for that matter

Jim

[KrustyKidd]

Please please oh Please prove this to me!! I have heard it time & time again & it still makes me laugh!! You are saying all these countries (USSR, Mideast,Viet Nam,Panama) were all planning to attack Canada??? Why am I just finding out about this!!! LOL

I don't know. It is common knowlege. Maybe a bit of history might help you. Prior to the Russian Revolution there were no communist countries. Now, Viet Nam, North Korea, China, and many many more places on earth have been taken over with the former USSRs help. Their agenda was to 'bury the west.' Guess you missed that one. As for them attacking Canada, I doubt it. However, once they controlled the rest of the world, we would have probably joined up with them volutarilly as they would have controlled the world's economy leaving us with nothing.

As for winning and losing, are you simply going to give up? Do you think that scince drugs are inevitable then pushers can simply move in beside you and start dealing? Or do you try to fight it? Try to take away the root casues for it such as lack of education, lack of community involvement, lack of public funding for social programmes? No need to bother, we won't win right?

[d4dev]

Prior to the Russian Revolution there were no communist countries. Now, Viet Nam, North Korea, China, and many many more places on earth have been taken over with the former USSRs help. Their agenda was to 'bury the west.'

That's totally absurd logic. That's like saying that prior to the French/American revolution, there were no democratic countries, and now, since most of the world is democratic, the French/Americans must have helped them.

Their agenda was then probably to bury communism.

[jccc]

I don't know.  It is common knowlege.  Maybe a bit of history might help you.  Prior to the Russian Revolution there were no communist countries.  Now, Viet Nam, North Korea, China, and many many more places on earth have been taken over with the former USSRs help.  Their agenda was to 'bury the west.' Guess you missed that one.  As for them attacking Canada, I doubt it.  However, once they controlled the rest of the world, we would have probably joined up with them volutarilly as they would have controlled the world's economy leaving us with nothing.

As for winning and losing, are you simply going to give up?  Do you think that scince drugs are inevitable then pushers can simply move in beside you and start dealing?  Or do you try to fight it?  Try to take away the root casues for it such as lack of education, lack of community involvement, lack of public funding for social programmes?  No need to bother, we won't win right?

A bit of history may help you as well. America won its independance & freedom buy fighting its OWN wars.

I do not think that we should not try to stop terrorism & drugs, but I do think the US should stop giving terrorists an excuse (occupying & trying to run their countries)

I do not think the US should be allowed to fly over fields in Columbia & other nations, spraying defoliants on what may or may not be coco or pot or poppy fields.

BTW, how much better is life in these former commie countries since the fall of Communism??

Jim

[Hugo]

BTW, how much better is life in these former commie countries since the fall of Communism??

Communist governments murdered 110,000,000 of their own citizens in the 20th Century, so in answer to your question, I would say "far, far better." I'd rather be poor than wondering if the secret police were going to knock on my door and take me out to the forests or the killing fields.

The 110m does not include the millions more who were tortured, forcibly deported, bound into slave labour and so forth.

It has been the most aggresively hegemonic superpower that the world has ever seen after Great Britian.

Actually, by those terms the USA is far surpassed by the USSR, Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan, all of whom were sworn enemies of the USA, and all of whom America spent blood, money and materiel fighting, in order that people like you can be free to whine about the country that has saved your liberty.

[d4dev]

Actually, by those terms the USA is far surpassed by the USSR, Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan, all of whom were sworn enemies of the USA, and all of whom America spent blood, money and materiel fighting, in order that people like you can be free to whine about the country that has saved your liberty.

Do you think that the Allies included the US alone? Read a bit about WW2 before making such statements.

[jccc]

Hugo

When exactly did the US protect us from an enemy????? I keep on hearing about it, but have not seen any proof. Was it in WW1 or 2??? No we were already there without our country being attacked & we advanced further on D-day than any other army!! You must be talking about that WMD ya'll dumped on Japan (isn't that ironic?) Was it Korea...no we were there to. So please explain to me when you defended our nation from invaders???? Hell, we don't have any enemies except the ones that the US makes for us!!! So take your inflated ego & get me some proof!! Solid proof, not WMD proof!!!!

Jim

[Hugo]

Do you think that the Allies included the US alone? Read a bit about WW2 before making such statements.

Do you think that the USSR or the UK could have even stopped Hitler, let alone defeated him, without US aid?

When exactly did the US protect us from an enemy?

The Cold War. Since the USSR had a policy of invading and annexing anything it could to spread Communism, it's fairly safe to assume that without the USA it would have eventually annexed Canada somehow, and as I said, the USSR was, historically, the most evil and despotic of regimes the world has ever seen.

Hell, we don't have any enemies except the ones that the US makes for us!!!

Yeah, you know, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, Ho Ci Minh, they're really all America's fault. They were all just nice guys who'd love to trade with Canada and respect human rights, until the evil USA turned them all against us.

[d4dev]

Do you think that the USSR or the UK could have even stopped Hitler, let alone defeated him, without US aid?

And what makes you think that the US could have won the war without the USSR or UK? I know that Americans have an enormously inflated ego, but let's be honest about this.

Yeah, you know, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, Ho Ci Minh, they're really all America's fault. They were all just nice guys who'd love to trade with Canada and respect human rights, until the evil USA turned them all against us.

None of them invaded/imposed sanctions against any capitalist countries the way the US did to communist countries. And at least they did not engage in doublespeak on the scale that Americans did. Claiming to be a 'champion of democracy', the US even overthrew democratically elected communist governments in Latin American countries. As I said, Americans are the biggest hypocrites ever.

[Black Dog]

You all have an innate ability to display self-loathing and fear of freedom for all. When Muslims truly embrace freedom and democracy, let us know. Until then, you defend societies that believe in bending their citizens to their will through terror.

You have an innate ability to be completely out to lunch.

Repressive regimes don't spring up in a vacumn. How many of the Muslim world's worst dictators have at one time or another, been clients of the west? Think Hussein, Suharto, the House of Saud etc. So we've hardly set the standard when it comes to promoting democracy.

When the west ceases its hypocritical asupport of repressive and tyrannical regimes the in the Mid East and the world over, then you can lecture me.

[Hugo]

And what makes you think that the US could have won the war without the USSR or UK?

The following hard facts make me think that. WWII was an economic war, a war of attrition, in which the victors won simply by virtue of training more men and building more equipment. If you want to compare relative war potential (a measure of industrial capacity as pertains to the ability to wage war), the share of world power in 1937 goes thus:

Italy: 2.5%

Japan: 3.5%

France: 4.2%

UK: 10.2%

USSR: 14%

Germany: 14.4%

USA: 41.7%

-- Comparitive Strength of the World Powers, in Toynbee, World in March 1939, p.446

Remember also that by 1937, the USA had great economic headroom - many unemployed and closed factories. Other nations, however, were at the ends of their economic tethers, as showcased by the falling living standards in Germany, Japan, and the USSR at that time caused by artificially accelerated industrialisation and armament production.

In summary, not only could the USA have won WWII alone, the USA could have won a war against the Axis powers and the USSR put together, even if Britain and France had stayed out of the conflict.

None of them invaded/imposed sanctions against any capitalist countries the way the US did to communist countries.

This is laughably untrue. Poland, the Baltic States, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and more were all capitalist states before 1939. The USSR annexed them after the war, installed puppet governments and imposed communism upon them by military force.

Note that the USA did not do the same. Liberating troops soon left France, Belgium, Holland, Italy and other countries, and allowed them to pursue their own economic and political futures independently (and those nations have frequently elected anti-American and anti-capitalist governments, to prove it). American troops remained in West Germany, not to impose their power, but instead to oppose a Warsaw Pact attack, which old Soviet records show was continuously planned for and contemplated many times since 1945.

Claiming to be a 'champion of democracy', the US even overthrew democratically elected communist governments in Latin American countries.

Actually, one Latin American country. There was going to be a coup anyway, and the CIA had groups queueing up to overthrow Allende because his reforms had polarised the country, enraged Chilean citizens and foreign investors, and brought economic chaos. Allende had already brought Chile to the brink of civil war.

[jccc]

Hugo

So when is the US marching into China to shut down that Commie regime...??????

Jim

[Hugo]

Who mentioned anything about China?

[Black Dog]

Well, given how much you like to fling about the number of people killed by Communist regimes, and how said figures justify and excuse any atrocity designed to prevent Communism's asendency, it's logical to assume you would endorse the removal of China's communist regime, a regime with an appalling human rights record.

Anyway, Hugo, the implication that we should be eternally grateful to America and not question any of its actions since it "saved" us from a horrible fate under Communism (were it to for the U.S., I'm sur ethe U.S.S.R would hav elong since come over the Pole on dogsled to conquer Canada) is offensive.

[Hugo]

we should be eternally grateful to America and not question any of its actions

I never said that, in fact, I specifically said the opposite. But why meet facts with facts, BlackDog, when you can meet them with insults, lies and ignorance?

What you have to recognise is that the USA has preserved freedom in the 20th Century far more than any other nation. You won't, and despite what history has to tell you, you insist on gouging out your eyes rather than looking at it and confronting the truth which is that your evil, evil USA has very probably saved your freedom and your very life.

it's logical to assume you would endorse the removal of China's communist regime, a regime with an appalling human rights record.

It depends, doesn't it? The Chinese regime will inevitably collapse, all communist systems do, because they are unsustainable and based upon tyranny. The momentum of liberty keeps growing. So the question is whether or not an invasion of China would cost more lives than would be lost by Chinese-government-sanctioned murder in the time period it will take for the PRC to fall. It's a difficult one, as all weighing of human life must be, with other factors such as the moral burden of sitting by while innocents are killed. The USA may feel it can do more without outright war, such as diplomatic and economic pressure, which was the method Reagan successfully used to topple the USSR.

[Black Dog]

What you have to recognise is that the USA has preserved freedom in the 20th Century far more than any other nation. You won't, and despite what history has to tell you, you insist on gouging out your eyes rather than looking at it and confronting the truth which is that your evil, evil USA has very probably saved your freedom and your very life.

See, that's the same trite B.S. answer you trot out everytime someone brings up any of the U.S.'s many sins. So what? Every time we mention something bad the U.S. has done, we have to attach a caveat? "Gee, it's too bad the U.S. supplied, trained and armed gureiillas in El Salvador that knife-raped those nuns, but theysurehavedonemoretoprotectourfreedomthananyoneelse!"

Does the "fact" of the U.S.'s protection of freedom thus absolve them of their sins? Do the actions of other states, like the former Soviet Union, excuse the actions of the U.S.A?

If anyone is acting out of willful blindness it is you.

Reagan successfully used to topple the USSR.

And this proves it.

[Hugo]

This kind of reply is typical for you. You have ignored everything I've said, rebutted nothing, provided absolutely no evidence or logic of any kind, and descended to insults and reiteration of earlier points that were already answered and refuted.

[jccc]

Hugo

Now you say the US has "probably" saved our freedom. There is NO sure fire way of proving this at all!! You might like to think that & yer the guy with all the facts & figures so please prove it!! I think we all know the REAL reason the US doesn't invade China & take down that evil regime....lets see if you can guess ??? Hint: it is not

The USA may feel it can do more without outright war, such as diplomatic and economic pressure, which was the method Reagan successfully used to topple the USSR.

Jim

[Hugo]

Now you say the US has "probably" saved our freedom. There is NO sure fire way of proving this at all!!

This is true, it's all just idle speculation. I base my opinions on the following facts which lead me to arrive at my extrapolation:

1) The USSR was a highly aggressive and expansionist regime. It invaded other countries by military force, dissolved the native governments, stole gold reserves, public, and private property; annexed the country as a whole and imposed Soviet rule by brutal military force, crushing dissent with violence (see Hungarian, Czech and other uprisings). Their practice was to station Russian units in their satellite states to be assured of military loyalty should the Red Army be needed to put down a rebellion, as it often was.

2) Soviet expansion knew no bounds. After annexing Eastern Europe, the USSR promptly got stuck into the Middle East, Africa, Cuba and the Far East (from Nikita Kruschev's autobiography). Up until the Gorbachev era, all Soviet military plans in Europe were for a purely offensive war (from records of the NVA, or East German People's Army). There was no doubt that they were contemplating the invasion of Western Europe. There is no reason to believe they would have stopped there since the USSR acknowledged no kind of Sphere of Influence, Monroe Doctrine or anything else that would create a logical stop-line for their aggression.

3) The USSR had concentrated massive conventional and nuclear forces. In 1983, the USSR had more nuclear weapons than all the other nuclear powers combined. In Europe alone, they had massed 170 divisions that could be deployed for war (plus forces in Asia and rear-echelon/garrison units in Europe). For comparison, the BAOR (British) had 4 divisions in Europe at the same time (from The Nuclear War File, Christopher Chant & Ian Hogg).

Based upon these facts, I can conclude the following:

1) Soviet expansion was planned and inevitable. As several Soviet defectors, particularly those from the Red Army such as Viktor Suvorov (pseudonym), have noted, the only way for an unsustainable state such as the USSR to survive is aggressive expansion.

2) Soviet military strength was so great that only the USA would have had the power to realistically oppose it. NATO without the USA would have been overrun in a few days (from NATO General Sir John Hackett, ret.).

This is why I reach my conclusions. Do you have a different point of view? Perhaps you can explain it similarly?

[Black Dog]

This kind of reply is typical for you. You have ignored everything I've said, rebutted nothing, provided absolutely no evidence or logic of any kind, and descended to insults and reiteration of earlier points that were already answered and refuted.

Rebut what? You have absolutely no substance beyond "USA good, Communism bad."

As you said before:

What you have to recognise is that the USA has preserved freedom in the 20th Century far more than any other nation.

Which isn't the point at all.

Indeed, the discussion was on terrorism. The discussion was around whther terrorism exists as a reaction to western policies or not. It was KrustyKidd who first raised the notion that "if not for the US intervening around the globe, you would be carving those words onto on a frozen potato in some work camp in Sasketchewan, looking over your shoulder in fear of being seen doing it." The idea being that evil acts are sometimes committed in the name of a greater good. Which promted a meta discussion about Communism and you to throw in the "110 million killed by communism" number (without attribution, might I add). The crux of your entire argument (such as it is) lies in this:

Actually, by those terms the USA is far surpassed by the USSR, Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan, all of whom were sworn enemies of the USA, and all of whom America spent blood, money and materiel fighting, in order that people like you can be free to whine about the country that has saved your liberty.

The implication being that those who question the U.S.A are merely ungrateful whiners.

Despite your claim that you said the opposite is true,

I never said that, in fact, I specifically said the opposite

nowhere on this thread do you make that statement.

Now, later I posted the following queries:

  Does the "fact" of the U.S.'s protection of freedom thus absolve them of their sins? Do the actions of other states, like the former Soviet Union, excuse the actions of the U.S.A?

It should also be noted that, despite your posturing, you failed to refute or even address any of the above, even though you claime to have "already answered and refuted" similar queries.

So, after reviewing this thread, it's clear that, faced with real questions, you choose instead to duck the issuse, then have the nerve to complain about lack of attribution, and insults where none have appeared.

[KrustyKidd]

Indeed, the discussion was on terrorism. The discussion was around whther terrorism exists as a reaction to western policies or not. It was KrustyKidd who first raised the notion that "if not for the US intervening around the globe, you would be carving those words onto on a frozen potato in some work camp in Sasketchewan, looking over your shoulder in fear of being seen doing it." The idea being that evil acts are sometimes committed in the name of a greater good.

  Does the "fact" of the U.S.'s protection of freedom thus absolve them of their sins? Do the actions of other states, like the former Soviet Union, excuse the actions of the U.S.A?

The idea being that evil acts are sometimes committed in the name of a greater good.

Yes. Now you have it!

And sometimes, Evil can come from good. A passive good called 'appeasement.'

[Black Dog]

And sometimes, Evil can come from good. A passive good called 'appeasement.'

What's appeasement? About 90 per cent of Spaniards oppossed their country's involvement in Iraq. Anazar ignored the will of the people and paid the price. It's just that simple.

The snide comments about "appeasement" and "giving in to terror" reveals a fundamental contempt for democracy among the right.

[KrustyKidd]

What's appeasement? About 90 per cent of Spaniards oppossed their country's involvement in Iraq. Anazar ignored the will of the people and paid the price. It's just that simple.

Yes, appeasement. Do what the terrorists want, give in to them, do not do anything to enrage them, do not resist them.

The snide comments about "appeasement" and "giving in to terror" reveals a fundamental contempt for democracy among the right.

Yes, the will of the people was to avoid confrontation. Ask that popular PM Chamberlain. As I said before, using the 'snide remark';

And sometimes, Evil can come from good. A passive good called 'appeasement.'

[Hugo]

The snide comments about "appeasement" and "giving in to terror" reveals a fundamental contempt for democracy among the right.

Aznar was elected to do what he thought was in the best interests of his people. He went to war with Iraq because he believed that was in the best interests of his people, however, the people disagreed so vehemently that he was voted out of office. We on the right don't have contempt for democracy, we just understand what representative democracy is, and we agree with Mr. Aznar on Iraq.