The Bush administration is busy preparing the *next* War On Terrorism

[DoctorGonzo]

link

The WoT is going to (surprise, surprise) be taken care of mostly by hired guns. Factions and governments that we arm secretly to fight our wars for us.

U.S troops will be "bravely" serving as FedEx for arms that will be distributed to the lowest scum of the earth.

Sound familiar?

Of course it does. We are just continuing our classic pattern of funding, arming and traning assholes around the world. 15 years from now, we'll all ask yet again "How did they get all those weapons?" when we're faced with the prospect of fighting them, and the answer will be the same...the U.S government supplied them with everything they have and everything they know.

We've funded these groups before, and we're gonna do it again. Only this time it won't be to create an enviornment that is sutible for U.S businesses to operate in - which is the usual, well-documented goal of most of our operations. Now, it's to fight terrorism with factions and governments that are far from freedom-loving, that will most likely end up going to war with us eventually.

Stupidity reigns supreme yet again.

The U.S is too cowardly to fight its own battles and has to rely on next year's enemies to do it for them.

Today's freedom fighter is tomorrow's terrorist.

It has nothing to do with the tactics the groups or governments use, but by whether or not they are serving Washington. This has been proven coutless times througout history.

Here we go again.

[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 01-07-2002).]

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
link
Stupidity reigns supreme yet again.
The U.S is too cowardly to fight its own battles and has to rely on next year's enemies to do it for them.
Here we go again.
[This message has been edited by DoctorGonzo (edited 01-07-2002).]

Yes here we go again...Doctor Gonzo insulting teh USA again. But this time, not once but twice in the same post (stupidity and cowardly!)
Listen here Doctor Gonzo, do you realize you'd probably be living in a Nazi controlled state right now if the stupid cowardly USA hadn't wipped Hitler's butt in WW2?

 

[DoctorGonzo]

Yes here we go again...Doctor Gonzo insulting teh USA again.

The nation was founded on the principle that criticsm of government is a virtue.

But this time, not once but twice in the same post (stupidity and cowardly!)

Funding shady millitant groups and manelovlent goverments = Stupidity.

Having someone else fight a war for you and then taking all the credit = Cowardly.

Listen here Doctor Gonzo, do you realize you'd probably be living in a Nazi controlled state right now if the stupid cowardly USA hadn't wipped Hitler's butt in WW2?

I'm talking about this situation, the actions being taken here and now. I don't see how character of the armed forces of 60 years ago in an unrealted matter affects them. Comparing the current actions of the millitary with those from 60 years ago that are the total antithesis of the ones being carried out, is not the way to prove your point.

You are trying to say that fighting a direct confrontation with an enemy 60 years ago somehow makes paying someone else to do it for you now a brave act.

Sorry, you lose. Try again.

Come back when you have something substantive to add to the discussion.

 

[Popmartijn]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
The U.S is too cowardly to fight its own battles and has to rely on next year's enemies to do it for them.
Here we go again.

Listen here Doctor Gonzo, do you realize you'd probably be living in a Nazi controlled state right now if the stupid cowardly USA hadn't wipped Hitler's butt in WW2?

On the other hand, following Doctor Gonzo's logic, the USA didn't behave cowardly then as they did fought their own battle (an action I'm very grateful for today).

Marty



------------------
People criticize me but I know it's not the end
I try to kick the truth, not just to make friends

Spearhead - People In Tha Middle

 

[brettig]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Listen here Doctor Gonzo, do you realize you'd probably be living in a Nazi controlled state right now if the stupid cowardly USA hadn't wipped Hitler's butt in WW2?

The stupid cowardly USA washed its hands of Hitler until its own territory was attacked by the Japanese u might recall...i havent got much to say about the main debate here but that sort of comment is unfair on the rest of the world, imo.

 

[Holy John]

All this reminds me a quote from Karl Marx : "History repeats itself. The first time its stupidity, but the second time its a joke.". But I won't quote Marx more than that, because numerous people here would figure me as a dangerous terrorist. Come on!

In my opinion, 80sU2isBest repeated himself once again. Instead of making a statement on Gonzo's comment, he went on personnal attacks, wich is far more easier than to defend his own point if he has one actually.

But commerce of weapon is the most profitable for the United States of America, and therefore in a free market standing it should be protected by the Army for the Country's interest (all that said while looking far away, hair in the wind and a golden sun).



------------------
United Nations : www.un.org - UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) : www.unicef.org
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) : www.unesco.org

"The one who governs with weapons is surely poor in ideas" - Subcommandante Marcos, Chiapas Mexico

 

[speedracer]

DoctorGonzo,

I think it's fair to point out that in the Vietnam War, our troops were not very effective in the difficult terrain and not particularly welcomed by the South Vietnamese.

As long as the forces we support are trustworthy (which of course is always open to question), there's nothing wrong with fighting a war by proxy. Not particularly glorious, but possibly more effective.

 

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
I'm talking about this situation, the actions being taken here and now. I don't see how character of the armed forces of 60 years ago in an unrealted matter affects them. Comparing the current actions of the millitary with those from 60 years ago that are the total antithesis of the ones being carried out, is not the way to prove your point.

You are trying to say that fighting a direct confrontation with an enemy 60 years ago somehow makes paying someone else to do it for you now a brave act.

Sorry, you lose. Try again.

Come back when you have something substantive to add to the discussion.

I'm not interested in getting into this main debate cuz My mind is being squandered by various arguments and ideals inanother thread in this forum, and I've got no spit and venom left for Dear Gonz..


But firstly, someone criticized 80's for making personal attacks, Where Gonz created this thread doing the exact same thing to USA.. Where's teh difference.. Anyways 80's didn't even make a personal attack.. He just stated a fact.. Gonz has been here before ripping the USA.. he's just enlightening the newer members of this place to that fact... Can anyone blame 80's.. I swear, Gonz makes some pretty ri-cock-u-lous statements here in this forum.. Sometimes they are diabolical, and sometimes they're just plain manureish drivel.. But Hey.. WE all have bad days here .. we've jsut got to work through it.. keep writing.. Keep being contributing members of the Free Your Mind Forum.. i mean It happens to teh best of us.. Me included
And also, there were references to the fact that US military's action 60 years ago, has no bearing on the fact that we're paying rebels who want .. say saddam out.. or the taliban out.. Well, I remember in a thread a while ago that Gonz posted about Gov't being corrupt.. that He referenced up the hizass about corrupt governmental actions up to fifty years ago.. Please for your integrity keep your standards or quota's for rips et al similar..
And that person who wanted to quote more Marx.. Please feel free. I mean we all quote Bono don't we (As all the heads in Free your Mind are wondering just what the hell i'm talking about making jsut such a pointless statement in the vain of homer simpson)

And Gonz.. If you're going to Tout yourself for being Successful, or perhaps Victorious.... I would suggest a little more spit and Fire.. Just writing 'Sorry, You Lose', carries no weight, You need to deliver a knockout punch.. Now if you were going to say,

"Homeboy Your facts are Wack"

then you'd be even more of a loser..

I would suggest something more on the line of "I hate to do this Bitch, But I'm on Top This TIme Muther F#cker" ...hahaha..

But please posters.. Continue in the oh so loquacious fashion that we all strive to create.. or ingeniate...

Oooh.. I feel like a moderator.. Kudos to me.. (As I pat myself on my back)

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-08-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-08-2002).]

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Holy John:
In my opinion, 80sU2isBest repeated himself once again. Instead of making a statement on Gonzo's comment, he went on personnal attacks, wich is far more easier than to defend his own point if he has one actually.

How did I make a personal attack? I merely stated a fact - that Dr Gonzo was up to his usual tricks of insulting the US again. As you'll recall, he's the one that actually did the insulting.
And as far as me not having a point, that's BS. He called the USA stupid and cowardly. he put no time constraint on that.
Also, the war we are waging right now shows neither cowardice nor stupidity. We've been doing the on-the-ground task of attacking the caves right there with them. Is that cowardice? No. As far as using the Northern Alliance to help us, that only makes sense - tehy've been fighting the Taliban for years. They know the terrain better than us. They fight on it every day. Also, there is the matter of how the Muslim world views this war. It is very important that we have as many nations' backing as possible. If we let the Muslim groups who are opposed to terrorism and the Taliban help us, that shows a positive side to the Muslim World, where if we just went in and started whipping everyone's butt on our own, they wouldn't like that one bit - many of the nations that are currently allied with us on this thing don't like us. However, it is the fact that we have so many Muslim nations' support that makes the alliance acceptable to them.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
I'm talking about this situation, the actions being taken here and now. I don't see how character of the armed forces of 60 years ago in an unrealted matter affects them. Comparing the current actions of the millitary with those from 60 years ago that are the total antithesis of the ones being carried out, is not the way to prove your point. You are trying to say that fighting a direct confrontation with an enemy 60 years ago somehow makes paying someone else to do it for you now a brave act. Sorry, you lose. Try again.
Come back when you have something substantive to add to the discussion.

Here I am Dr Gonzo. I never said you don't have a right to crticize the government. But seriously, it has become your trademark around here. It's what you are known for in this forum. I've yet to hear you say one good thing about the USA. One good thing.
You called the USA stupid and cowardly. You put no time constraint on that.
Also, the war we are waging right now shows neither cowardice nor stupidity. We've been doing the on-the-ground task of attacking the caves right there with them. Is that cowardice? No. As far as using the Northern Alliance to help us, that only makes sense - tehy've been fighting the Taliban for years. They know the terrain better than us. They fight on it every day. Also, there is the matter of how the Muslim world views this war. It is very important that we have as many nations' backing as possible. If we let the Muslim groups who are opposed to terrorism and the Taliban help us, that shows a positive side to the Muslim World, where if we just went in and started whipping everyone's butt on our own, they wouldn't like that one bit - many of the nations that are currently allied with us on this thing don't like us. However, it is the fact that we have so many Muslim nations' support that makes the alliance acceptable to them.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by brettig:
The stupid cowardly USA washed its hands of Hitler until its own territory was attacked by the Japanese u might recall...i havent got much to say about the main debate here but that sort of comment is unfair on the rest of the world, imo.

We didn't know about the horror of the concentration camps until we started liberating places. And we actually were involved before we "officially" entered the war. Just not with soldiers. We were providing weapons to our allies. Fact is the rest of the world was losing until we got involved. Russia may never have fallen, but all of Europe would have (with the possible exception of Switzerland, because everyone in that nation has guns in their houses). Honestly, no disrespect intended to the rest of the world; it is just a plain and simple fact

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Lemonite:
But firstly, someone criticized 80's for making personal attacks, Where Gonz created this thread doing the exact same thing to USA.. Where's teh difference.. Anyways 80's didn't even make a personal attack.. He just stated a fact.. Gonz has been here before ripping the USA.. he's just enlightening the newer members of this place to that fact... Can anyone blame 80's.. I swear, Gonz makes some pretty ri-cock-u-lous statements here in this forum.. Sometimes they are diabolical, and sometimes they're just plain manureish drivel.. But Hey.. WE all have bad days here .. we've jsut got to work through it.. keep writing.. And also, there were references to the fact that US military's action 60 years ago, has no bearing on the fact that we're paying rebels who want .. say saddam out.. or the taliban out.. Well, I remember in a thread a while ago that Gonz posted about Gov't being corrupt.. that He referenced up the hizass about corrupt governmental actions up to fifty years ago.. Please for your integrity keep your standards or quota's for rips et al similar..
[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 01-08-2002).]

Thanks a heap, Lemonite for getting my back. I can always count on you.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
And we actually were involved before we "officially" entered the war. Just not with soldiers. We were providing weapons to our allies.

And making a tidy profit out of it. I think it's worth noting that the United States was in a depression in 1939 but by 1945 had the most prosperous economy in the world and was therefore in a position to have a great deal of control over what would happen in post-war Europe.

(Please don't take this as me bashing the US. I'm not. I've lived in the US and I love it there. It's US foreign policy which I'm critical of, not the country or its citizens.)

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by anitram:
One of my college profs (yes, he's American) says that this is one of the biggest misconceptions Americans have, and that any self-respecting historian would recognize that if you were going to single out ONE nation for the destruction of the Nazis, it would have to be the former Soviet Union, whose contributions are tidily summed up in a paragraph in American high school history books. Food for thought.

Actually, what you said about any "self-respecting historian" is not true. My friend is not a professor, but she did indeed graduate with a history degree, and she is a big WW2 buff. She knows her history, and she would definitely disagree with your prof there. She would tell you that the Russian people were so fed up with the Russian government at the time that they actually gave aid to the Nazis. If America had not entered the war, Russia may very well have had a situation in which the army was not receiving the moral support of the people. Main thing that Russia did was drive back the Nazis when the Nazis attacked Russia in the winter. While Russia was a vital ally (as was England), they were NOT the most important force in driving back the Nazis.

[This message has been edited by 80sU2isBest (edited 01-08-2002).]

 

[Holy John]

Gonzo, were you talking about the Bush administration or the Roosevelt / Truman administration ????

------------------
United Nations : www.un.org - UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) : www.unicef.org
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) : www.unesco.org

Ej?rcito Zapatista de Liberaci?n Nacional (EZLN) : www.ezln.org "The one who governs with weapons is surely poor in ideas" - Marcos

Solidarit?s : <A HREF="http://www.solidarites.org" TARGET=_blank>www.ezln.org/URL]

Le Rassemblement pour une Alternative Progressiste : www.parti-rap.org</A>

 

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by brettig:
The stupid cowardly USA washed its hands of Hitler until its own territory was attacked by the Japanese u might recall...

Couldn't a similar assesment be made about Britain's Lord Chamberlain and his appeasement towards Hitler regarding Czechoslavakia in the 1930s?

~U2Alabama

 

[melon]

Ugh...back to WWII. Will we ever put it past us? It was 60 years ago, for God's sake.

Why the U.S. ignored the war until 1941 was due to isolationism, which was paraded by more conservative elements in the country at the time. Since the events in Europe and Asia didn't directly concern the U.S., it felt that it didn't need to get involved. Then Japan attacks the U.S., and, obviously, it decided to retaliate by declaring war on Japan. Due to the alliance between the Axis powers, Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S., as a result. Would the U.S. have gotten involved in the European war otherwise? We'll never know.

The Soviet Union greatly underestimated Hitler. When Hitler broke the non-aggression pact and attacked the Soviet Union, Stalin was planning to break it first. Stalin, originally, surmised that Hitler would be occupied fighting the Allies and wouldn't be stupid enough to take on a second front. Hence, Stalin planned on first destroying the Nazis and then destroying the Western Allies to export Communism to all of Europe. As a rabid anti-Semite himself, Stalin planned on finishing Hitler's Holocaust.

But, in terms of defeating the Nazis, it was a double effort between America and the Soviet Union. Hence, we had the Iron Curtain, with Eastern Europe being controlled by the Soviet Union (Stalin keeping true to part of his original plan) and Western Europe liberated. I would say that neither were any more or less important in driving back the Nazis, although to dismiss the Soviet Union would be a mistake.

Appeasement was an obvious reaction to a continent afraid of returning to World War I. Lord Chamberlain tried to avert war in good faith, but, obviously, it only served to buy Hitler time to grow stronger. Consider it a lesson to be learned for the future.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[speedracer]

Originally posted by melon:


Why the U.S. ignored the war until 1941 was due to isolationism, which was paraded by more conservative elements in the country at the time.

The depression might have had something to do with it too.

 

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by speedracer:
The depression might have had something to do with it too.

I do love the guerilla tactic of this post.. Drop a little ditty (though an intelligent, and succintly perfect post) and then hightail the hell out.
I'm a big fan.

Lemonite Unplugged
~A Walking Damascus

 

[Se7en]

Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
The nation was founded on the principle that criticsm of government is a virtue.

Maybe you should show some more respect and appreciation for the government that continues to provide you with such.

------------------
Rock 'N Roll is the sound of revenge.

 

[StarsnStripes]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees:
And making a tidy profit out of it. I think it's worth noting that the United States was in a depression in 1939 but by 1945 had the most prosperous economy in the world and was therefore in a position to have a great deal of control over what would happen in post-war Europe.

A big profit from the Lend-Lease Act? I don't think so. The American economy improved itself for one reason only-- the war put millions of unemployed American workers back in the factories. No amount of arms sales will pull an economy the size of the USA's out of that kind of depression.

(Please don't take this as me bashing the US. I'm not. I've lived in the US and I love it there. It's US foreign policy which I'm critical of, not the country or its citizens.)

If I had a dollar for every time this was uttered...

Everything the US knows about foreign policy was learned from England and France centuries ago....

You want to enjoy what the US has to offer, then knife it in the back whenever possible. nice touch...

 

[anitram]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:

Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
Listen here Doctor Gonzo, do you realize you'd probably be living in a Nazi controlled state right now if the stupid cowardly USA hadn't wipped Hitler's butt in WW2?

One of my college profs (yes, he's American) says that this is one of the biggest misconceptions Americans have, and that any self-respecting historian would recognize that if you were going to single out ONE nation for the destruction of the Nazis, it would have to be the former Soviet Union, whose contributions are tidily summed up in a paragraph in American high school history books. Food for thought.

 

[brettig]

Originally posted by U2Bama:
Couldn't a similar assesment be made about Britain's Lord Chamberlain and his appeasement towards Hitler regarding Czechoslavakia in the 1930s?

~U2Alabama

yup...but the US was guilty of turning something of a blind eye for longer than Britain, well after Hitler's truest territorial ambitions became clear. Chamberlain was naive, sure, but the memories of the 1st World War played on the minds of Europe to such and extent that they were reduced to trying to bargain with a madman.

In response to 80s- are you saying the Holocaust was the only evil perpetrated by the Nazis? Surely invading and occupying most of Western Europe was a crime in itself? I don't dispute that the tide turned around the time the USA entered the war, but the Commonwealth nations, fighting virtually alone for a time, were at least able to hold their own. In my view they also provided alot of the brains and experience required to effectively deploy the American might when it finally became available.

 

[melon]

Originally posted by StarsnStripes:
You want to enjoy what the US has to offer, then knife it in the back whenever possible. nice touch...

Does "criticism" inevitably mean "hatred"? I think that when the day comes when we can no longer criticize without fear is the day we are no longer what "America" stands for. Patriotism is one thing. Nationalism is another.

Melon


------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Originally posted by melon:
Does "criticism" inevitably mean "hatred"? I think that when the day comes when we can no longer criticize without fear is the day we are no longer what "America" stands for. Patriotism is one thing. Nationalism is another.

One might also say that criticism is one thing. Categorical condemnation of the actions of someone based on a personal vendetta is another.

Constructive and meaningful criticism and debate is something to be embraced without a doubt, but ideally they will involve positive suggestions for change. Merely rehashing one's grievances and conspiracy theories contribute nothing to that process.

 

[Klodomir]

Originally posted by StarsnStripes:
Everything the US knows about foreign policy was learned from England and France centuries ago....

What's that got to do with the price of oranges?

You want to enjoy what the US has to offer, then knife it in the back whenever possible. nice touch...

Oh, get over yourself. Do you really think the rest of the world has nothing better to do than to be mean to the poor old US? Criticism is not necessarily an attack. Oh, btw, thanks for the Big Macs. Love 'em!

 

[sv]

1. Dr. Gonzo's facts are nearly completely correct.

2. The U.S. government is not stupid. Its goal is to rule the world economically and militarily, whatever it takes, and no matter how many foreigners die, are maimed, or starve. U.S. policy is completely consistent with these aims. The problem is morality, not stupidity.

3. Bombing a civilian population and flying away is cowardly. If I disliked a child, providing another child with a baseball bat to kill him would be a cowardly act. Either way, it's murder-for-hire.

4. Whether or not Germany was conquered by the U.S. or the U.S.S.R 55 years ago is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the question of whether current U.S. policy is immoral.

5. That said, U.S. government policy in the 1930s was very friendly to Nazi Germany, both diplomatically and economically. The U.S. corporate elite had major investments in Germany's success in a variety of ways. The U.S. regarded (and still does, as its many activities supporting Latin America neo-fascism amply demonstrate) fascism as a major bulwark against the spread of socialism/communism, which was considered a significant threat back then. The U.S. decided to join WW2 when it perceived that its economic interests were threatened (mainly in the South Pacific, where we instituted our imperialism in the last 1800s/early 1900s, but worldwide also). American policy-makers didn't give a hoot about the incredibly repressive nature of Nazi Germany.

 

[sv]

And Se7en, I never asked my government to kill innocent people in order to give me a good life. Neither did most Americans. So why should I be grateful?

And as for the "security" they're providing me, I simply don't view Afghani children and women as a threat to me - how can a person who doesn't eat, has one leg and cholera, and lives 8000 miles away possibly be a threat to me? In fact, I believe that the increased hatred created by unfair U.S. policy is what endangers me (and contributed to the deaths of the 9-11 victims).

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by sv:
The problem is morality, not stupidity.

I agree


------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Salome:

Originally posted by sv:
The problem is morality, not stupidity.

I agree

The problem is morality? You think it's immoral to bomb a nation when you are at war with them? Is the US intending to kill innocents? No. Are they taking precautions not to? Yes. If you think that a whole bunch of innocent Afhanis have been killed, are you wrong? Yes. Are the Afghanis glad they have been liberated? yes.

And how can you say the problem with the Bush admin is morality, after the 8 years we just got through? 8 years of a wife-cheater who lied to a federal grand jury about it. 8 years of illegal campaign contributions. 8 years of scandal after scandal. 8 years of people dying left and right who were involved in those scandals.

Bush admin immoral? ha.

You've got to be friggin' kidding me.