jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (314 posts)

Why do we still have enemies?

  1. Barefootfae profile image61
    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03 … reats?lite

    You know when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, Americans in Europe were hugged because they elected him and he was given a Nobel Peace prize because he was alive on the planet...and on and on....
    I thought the world was supposed to smile upon us and be at peace with us?
    Just because of the fact we elected Barack Obama.

    Is reality setting in on you folks yet?

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Most of them are still blinded by his "brilliance".
      I know some professed conservatives who buckled at the knees when he showed up.
      Quite a phenomenon.
      Poor things;  poor USA.

      1. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        a lot of folks still don't see what has been done and they have Ted Kennedy at least partially to thank.
        His endorsement set the stage.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yep.  He was a powerful influence.
          Too bad he wasn't opposed more strongly years ago.   McCain was too soft on him, counted him as a friend even while he debated him on the Senate floor.   But then, McCain wasn't as Right as I thought he was all this time either.

          1. Barefootfae profile image61
            Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            John McCain betrayed anyone Conservative who voted for him with his treatment of Rand Paul.

            Barack Obama was Ted's parting gift to the Clintons.

          2. jonnycomelately profile image86
            jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Could it be that the "Right" are so right that they are wrong?

            1. Barefootfae profile image61
              Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The right has nothing to do with this. America was sold a bill of goods called Barack Obama.
              He was marketed as being the smartest man in the room and the solution.
              He is neither.


              Right?

              1. jonnycomelately profile image86
                jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Would you accept that a country (a nation) will get the leader it deserves?

                If any of the opposition party had won the Presidency, what do you imagine your own personal position would be right now?   

                If any other person in the Democratic Party had won the Presidency, do you suppose that would have made a big difference as to how the Nation stands right now?

                Are the major problems within the nation's economy and it's social infrastructure a result of what past Presidents and Governments have instigated?   Or are those problems caused by the activities of individual persons within the society at large?   Does Greed come into it?   Does Religiosity play a part?  Does naivety have anything to do with the "problems?"

                In other words, who is responsible for any solutions to the problems?  Can anyone really "pass the buck?"

                These are genuine questions, inviting well considered, genuine answers.  They are not directed as an accusation.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, we can "pass the buck".

                  To our neighbor, and to that guy or girl we see in the mirror each morning.  They are equally deserving of the blame.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Because decades of overthrowing democratic governments, causing the deaths of millions and bullying other nations is not forgotten in one 8 year term, it has improved however.

      1. Marquis profile image59
        Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What democratic governments are you talking about? America is the poster child for democracy. If any thing, America has influenced nations to become democratic.

        You always misunderstand everything. That is what happens when you are the ENEMY of America and Democracy.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Do you really need me to give you a list o democratic governments overthrown by us and our backing? If so you have absolutely no knowledge of our history and are not really worthy of listening to on the subject.

          You can start with Chile as noted above.

          Then you should read some history, the ignorance is tragic.

          The dismissal of the countless lives lost by that ignorance even more so, many family and friends of mine amongst them.

        2. Zelkiiro profile image85
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "America is the poster child for democracy."

          Incorrect. The correct answer is "Ancient Greece," as it was the first recorded country to establish such a system.

  2. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Nice straw man you have there.

    1. Barefootfae profile image61
      Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's the message that was projected.
      That's the image that was projected.
      Not mine....someone else's and now of course I am scorned for wanting to discuss the merits or lack thereof.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Anyone who suggests a person becoming president will stop all hostility towards the US is insane.

        And I can't say I have ever seen anyone say it.

        1. Barefootfae profile image61
          Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well all I can say is you weren't paying attention at the time.

        2. Marquis profile image59
          Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Remember the Left kept saying "The World Can't Wait?"

  3. John Holden profile image59
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    "Why do we still have enemies"

    Because you still have the worlds largest army that is happiest when doing that thing armies do - killing people.

    1. Barefootfae profile image61
      Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      But Barack was supposed to change the perception the international community had of us. Right?

    2. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
      BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You claim the soldiers are happiest when they are killing people?

      1. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well we are America you know.....the root of all evil.

        According to the liberals.

      2. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe a bit strong but have you ever seen a soldier when not on active service?

        1. cheaptrick profile image63
          cheaptrickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What's your point with an all inclusive statement like this? How many off duty soldiers have you observed and for how long? I'm a retired marine and I hate war as any true soldier would.
          It appears that you want to extrapolate a "soldiers are all death mongers "image out of some random observation of a psychopath in uniform. I assure you sir, the majority are honorable men who detest killing and pay an emotional price the rest of their lives. There is such a thing as a true warrior just as there is such a thing as murder during war. We served and serve our country because we love it.
          Perhaps you should direct your anger at the leaders where it belongs.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps that is why, though much smaller, our army is far more deadly than yours.
            Our soldiers are trained to kill. Unfortunately when they leave the service they are not untrained which makes them rather dubious neighbours, or at least some of them.

            I thought you were a democracy and that I was directing my comments where they belonged.

            1. cheaptrick profile image63
              cheaptrickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Your military is deadlier than ours? I'll bet your dad can beat up my dad too. You speak in stereo typical statements, the hall mark of a lazy intellect. Until you directly experience the reality of war your comments have no validity....and by the way, America is not a democracy and never has been. We sir are a Republic in which there is a huge struggle in hopes of Not becoming a democracy. It amazes me how people who live within the freedom provided by the sacrifices of men in uniform can so casually judge and condemn the very men who protect that freedom.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Actually I was loosely quoting the words of an American General - if you find my comment objectionable, take it up with him. Unfortunately I can't remember his name at the moment.

                I did think you were a Democratic Republic, with government officials and representatives voted into power by the people. My  mistake. You must explain to this lazy intellect how your system actually works then, are you governed by a Royal family, a life time dictator, what?

                And tell me, how is attacking some third world country on the other side of the world protecting my freedom?

        2. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
          BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes I have. What is your point?

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Blimey, you've dragged that one up from so far back that I've almost forgotten my point!

            Which as I recall was to do with soldiers being employed to kill other people and that they are so programmed that discharge from the army doesn't stop the will to kill..

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What is the percentage of discharged vets that murder vs the percentage of non vets that murder?  You might want to deduct those people that work a job such as police, security, etc. - either that or make sure the numbers reflect legal murder rather than killings in the line of duty.

              Does your point have anything to back it, or is it simple opinion without knowledge?  The vets I've been acquainted with have become the most peaceable people I know.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                But the point remains that soldiers are trained to kill and to be immune to the effects of that killing.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  As indicated, apparently they are either de-programmed or trained not to let it affect their personal lives; either way they are safer to have around than non-military in my experience.

                  Given that, I'm not sure of your point - simple cruelty, a knock at a group you don't like, a type of discrimination?  Whatever it is, it doesn't seem to add anything here.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Well stop trying to read things into it that were never there. I made a simple point - soldiers are trained to kill.
                    Either prove to me that they aren't or find something else to get your teeth into.

            2. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
              BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What is your evidence of that? Is it the fact that some soldiers return mentally unbalanced and commit crimes? Do you believe that is a majority of the soldiers returning?

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I never claimed a majority, just a fact that soldiers are trained to kill (at least ours are anyway, your's might be trained to play poker with your enemies, but I doubt it).

                1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
                  BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about. You shouldn't defame the veterans who have sacrificed more than you will ever know.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Who is defaming anybody! I'm stating a simple, I thought irrefutable, fact.

                    So tell me, what are your soldiers trained for?

      3. Zelkiiro profile image85
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No, they're happiest when they're raping women, both the natives and their colleagues.

        1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
          BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sure that is something you only say behind the anonymity of the keyboard.

          1. Marquis profile image59
            Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Deleted

            1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
              BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know where he's from but I am sure he is a keyboard commando. I watched a documentary on the Klitschko brothers recently (reigning heavyweight champions) and one of the clips had Vladimir telling his father that the United States was a wonderful place. His father said that the U.S. was a horrendous place and he just saw the good side of the propaganda. Later it went on to tell how his father before he died would vacation in Florida and couldn't get enough of America.

              I would suspect those haters of America have never actually been here.

        2. Marquis profile image59
          Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I know you are unfamiliar with U.S. military procedures, but who were you talking about?

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this
            1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
              BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So 5 soldiers represent the totality of the U.S. Army? Your hatred of us is sickening.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No, not hatred just countering a claim that it never happened. Still, I suppose I would be disappointed if you didn't manage to read into it something that was never there.

                Would it calm you if I posted another link to UK soldiers raping?

                1. Marquis profile image59
                  Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  John, you like distorting facts. That is what you seem to do best.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    And what facts am I distorting? Facts established by your courts of law that some soldiers did rape?

                2. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
                  BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Your hatred flows in every post that you make. I am not interested in hearing about British soldiers raping, war causes some men to do horrible things but it should not indict an entire Army no matter its allegiance.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Easily solved, stop reading my posts.

                    There, that was easy wasn't it?

    3. Marquis profile image59
      Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You do not pay attention to stats do you?

      North Korea, China and India have a standing army that out numbers the U.S. The U.S. kicks butt when the U.S. has to. Little Lefty, do not be so jealous of American supremacy.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image85
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        China is more interested in having us as a business partner, not as an enemy. Likewise with India. Out of those three, only North Korea is willing to duke it out with us, and if they ever tried, they would be curbstomped so hard the pavement would be permanently stained red.

        1. Marquis profile image59
          Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh my...Zelkiiro, I actually agree with you.

          See, that was NOT so bad.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image85
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            ...There's something surprising about North Korea being an obnoxious blowhard?

            1. BuckyGoldstein profile image60
              BuckyGoldsteinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, its just surprising you would recognize it.

  4. Comrade Joe profile image87
    Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago

    You still have enemies as you are the head of global imperialism.  Both your political parties are capitalist parties and no matter who they elect they will serve the interests of capital against the interests of the masses.  No matter which puppet does the bidding of the bourgeoisie, the result is the same: your destructive economic system forced upon the world kills more people from poverty than any other economic system.   Only naive liberals, opportunists and petit-bourgeois social chauvinists ever thought otherwise.  The proletarian masses and oppressed peoples of the world knew from experience that change was fake rhetoric.

    1. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Comrade Joe, the "system" that you espouse is no different.   Within it, you will find Greed, Hatred, Selfishness, Dishonesty, Dissension,  Politicking --- in other words all the failings and shortcomings you blame the Capitalists for.   One other negative you share with some Capitalists:   you walk around with blinkers on and avoid looking in the mirror.

      It's the human tendency.   Cuts across all political, religious and social systems.  So don't kid yourself that you and your system have all the answers.   The real answer will only come from being totally honest with your self.

      IMHO !

      1. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        S what IS the answer....

        IYHO?

        1. jonnycomelately profile image86
          jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I suggest we try to step out of the Blame Game.   (Sure, I have dipped my toe into the Game in my post immediate prior to this one.)   It seems to me that blaming any system, whether it be capitalism, communism, liberalism, etc., does not benefit us at all.    It merely shifts our focus away from the real issues.   And the real issues are our fears of "what if."   Our greed and selfishness, our anxieties and crimes, are in response to fear, anxieties.  If we can get to understand our actions and reactions, which are all basically animal in nature, then we can use our human intelligence to find solutions.

          1. Barefootfae profile image61
            Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So you don't actually have the answer.....but you are sure I don't either.

        2. Comrade Joe profile image87
          Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You may say it is the human tendency.  But the human tendency is always evolving and developing. The natural order of things is always changing, slavery, female subjugation, child labor, these used to be the natural order of things, but we have outgrown such primitive values just as we will grow out of todays "human tendency".

          Bourgeois apologists will forever go on about this human nature thing, about how corrupt and selfish we supposedly are, and how fixed this is. This is supposed to be an argument for capitalism, and against socialism.  Yet get in a slightly different argument with them and they quickly espouse that charity can fix problems.  So we are selfish and greedy, but also voluntarily kind and good-willed.   Bourgeois apologists are clearly entangled in an ideological web of self-contradiction.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            One only has to look at the human tendency in the face of real adversity such as an earthquake or a train crash.  Then the natural human tendency is to help - even at the risk of life.
            The natural human tendency is to cooperate, none cooperative capitalism is unnatural.

            We learnt at a very early  age that one man out hunting a buffalo would have very little chance of success and a high chance of death. If he was successful most of the yield would be wasted.
            A cooperative ( or collective) would have a much greater chance of success at a much lesser risk and little would be wasted.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "non-cooperative capitalism" - as in forced slavery?

              Surely you aren't referring to a company in mutual cooperation with an employee to produce profits for both?

          2. Marquis profile image59
            Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Child labor and slavery is still happening in Europe. Stealing and selling women and children is still happening in Europe as well. Thank God it does not happen here.

            Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Kim Jung Il all said the same thing too Comrade Joe while they were busy setting up labor camps. They were also authoritarians who starved their people. Some actions were worse pending on who it was. Communists and Socialists echo ideological webs of self-contradiction.

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How anyone could look at the US food industry, not only producing all that is needed for the country but then exporting $137,000,000,000 worth last year to help feed other nations, and claim that our economy kills more people with poverty than any other system is beyond me.

        1. jonnycomelately profile image86
          jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          In reply to your question, I can give one example where apparently damage has been done to a local community.

          The Island if Haiti at one time was growing almost 100% of its rice crop.   Subsidized rice from the United States then entered Haiti.  This subsidized rice can now be sold in the street markets at a price lower than the Haitian farmers can produce it.  The farmers pack up, move into the urban areas, causing economic, social and health problems from overcrowding.  The farms become non-viable, depleting the countryside of community and family life.   Here I am guessing, but are there companies in the United States who benefit handsomely from the sale of their produce to Haiti?  Is that altruistic character of overseas aid from the United States really helpful?   I wonder, but do not have an answer.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Providing cheaper food causes urban areas to deteriorate and increases poverty.  Sorry, but I'd have to say that the causes of both is the stupidity of the people; inability to sell rice at high prices means finding something else to grow, not give up the farm, move the city and live in squalor.

            Or so the Americans see it - other nations and cultures may feel differently.

            Are there companies and farming families that profit - sure, but just how "handsomely" I really don't know.  Not very, I would suspect.  A family feeding itself from farming either makes a profit from that farm or goes under; no one can provide much free food to poverty stricken countries without losing their own farm.

            Is US altruism really helpful?  Yes, but I would have to primarily limit it to actual, physical improvements, schooling, etc. and not to money given.  That mostly ends up in the pockets of govt. officials.  IMHO.

            1. jonnycomelately profile image86
              jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Maybe the definition of Cap-it-all-ism is the "pulling of the Cap over one's eyes to hide the truth."

        2. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Simple, it's all in the $$$$, have plenty, eat well, have none, starve to death.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I see.  So now the US economy is the cause of poverty in Nigeria.  Just as Johnny says, giving free or cheap food increases poverty in other countries.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes it does. It changes the infrastructure and shifts the balance of power.

              Do you know that the people of Patna, in India, can no longer market their rice as "Patna Rice"  because an American corporation has trade marked the name Patna! 

              So, we'll sell you cheap rice but we won't let you market your own superior rice - great help.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I see.  Best, then, that the Americans keep the food feeding half the world at home and let them starve instead.  That's the best you can come up with?

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So that's your justification for stealing a town's income!

            2. Comrade Joe profile image87
              Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The problem is less aid, than the problem is the IMF and World Bank giving loans to corrupt regimes that are then overthrown, but the debt amassed by the corrupt regimes has to be paid off by the people.  Like how Indonesia is in poverty because the US backed General Suharto with loans, with free market stipulations, and now the people have got rid of Suharto (who kept all the loaned wealth) and now the people have to pay it back even though they took out no loans and received no benefit from the loans.  The Soviet Union used to give interest free loans, or loans with nominal rates to build infrastructure, the US gives loans to tinpot, here today gone tomorrow regimes, which the US can then live off the interest while the people abroad starve.

              That governments are overthrown to provide resources for capitalism is the problem.  That capital migrates to find cheap labor is the problem.  That US capital dominates every country is the problem.   

              It is the same reason people hate my country too (the UK), they just hate you more as you are the leaders, the head of this moribund system, we are only the sidekicks.

              If your free market is so superior, you can have it.  But stop enforcing it on the rest of the world who want no part of it.  But the fact is without third world super exploitation your economy would collapse under its own weight.  Your lifestyle is subsidized by the blood of Africans.

              Bourgeois Americans can delude themselves that the US is hated because of particular presidents, or "they hate us for our freedoms" or any other notion of the day.  But go to a working class neighborhood anywhere in the world and ask the people there why they hate the US and the true picture emerges: the picture I paint.  If you want to know why the US is hated, then listen to the people who hate it, people like me.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                BS.  Governments are not overthrown to provide resources for capitalism; they are overthrown because their citizens don't like what that govt. is doing to them.

                Nor does the US force it's capitalism on other countries; they are free to buy and sell or not as they wish.  That they wish to sell resources or labor to the US cannot be termed "force" in any manner, and neither is it "exploitation".

                1. Comrade Joe profile image87
                  Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  If they were overthrown for the reasons you suggest, they would be overthrown by the people, not the US military and intelligence services.  But Arbenz in Guatemala, Mossadegh in Iran, Lumumba in Congo right up to the modern day 2002 failed coup against Chavez - the fact is the US has stood against the people, trying and often succeeding in overthrowing governments elected by the people.  This is force.  In other cases, if we do not call it force, what you have is the US in collusion with small bourgeois and aristocratic groups and puppet leaders holding the people down.  Use whatever term for it you like, but the fact remains.  And if you do not think it is exploitation, you simply do not know what exploitation means.  It is that simple.

                2. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Absolute codswallop!

                  The US overthrows governments who look as if they might trammel the mighty god of capitalism, no other reason. They don't give a monkeys about what the people want or what is good for the people. The USA has been responsible for some of the worst tyrants getting power.

                  The US does nothing but force its capitalism on other countries and although happy to flood the worlds markets is very protective of its own.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    How is forcing capitalism done?  By asking if someone wants to buy?  Or work?  By sending in the Navy to steal the products we want and throwing $100 on the ground?

                    Just how is that capitalism forced on other countries?

                    1. Comrade Joe profile image87
                      Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Josak has mentioned the Allende example.  I have mentioned Arbenz and others - this is clear force.

                      And as i also said, it colludes with minority bourgeois and aristocratic groups is a form of force.  War and the use of the military is merely a function of force, it is not force itself.  But when you give loans and assistance to someone like General Suharto in the knowledge the use it to enrich their ruling group and build a military capable of quelling the impoverished masses, and thereby condemning them to a (short) lifetime of poverty and misery, I call that force.  Economic blockade, economic sanctions, these are functions of force. 

                      Americans are all for democracy, just so long as we all elect capitalists loyal to Washington.

                    2. John Holden profile image59
                      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      How is forcing capitalism done?

                      Simple, the country of Hades wants to buy guns and ammunition (say) off you because they can get them from you cheaper than anywhere else and they are after all the best.

                      Sure, you say, we will sell you guns and ammunition but we need paying in US dollars.

                      What's that, you have no US dollars, no problem, sell us something and we'll pay you in US dollars that you can then spend on the Gs and A.

                      Oh dear, you've only got rice to sell, well OK, but you understand that we are the greatest country in the world and have more rice than you can shake a stick at so we can't actually pay you very much for it.

                      What do you mean, the price we are offering you is less than the cost of production! It's the best we can do.
                      Now do you want these Gs and A or not?

                3. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Many times that has been manifestly untrue, for example Allende in Chile, a democratically elected President was killed in a US backed and funded coup, then it's population had capitalism forced on it (not to mention dictatorship) with US material aid during Operation Condor for decades after, in the area of 50 000 were kidnapped and tortured to death for expressing leftist sentiments before the dictatorship finally collapsed.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Not being familiar with Chile at all, I scanned the wikipedia entry on it.

                    Nowhere did I see that American troops were on Chilean soil.  Americans backed, with money and propaganda, Allesandri who won the election.  Chilean nationals were thus the only ones directly involved in the "takeover", which is what I said.  The citizens of Chile didn't like what Allende was doing and voted him out.

                    1. Josak profile image60
                      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      What the hell are you reading! Allende was killed in the military coup backed and funded by the US and Pinochet a military dictator took power.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chile … 7%C3%A9tat

                      Jorge Alessandri lost the election to Allende.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Alessandri

                      Jesus christ! So much ignorance in this thread!

                    2. John Holden profile image59
                      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      "The U.S. provided material support to the military regime after the coup, although criticizing it in public. A document released by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 2000, titled "CIA Activities in Chile", revealed that the CIA actively supported the military junta after the overthrow of Allende, and that it made many of Pinochet's officers into paid contacts of the CIA or U.S. military, even though some were known to be involved in human rights abuses. Perhaps most infamously, the CIA maintained contacts among the Chilean DINA intelligence service while DINA leaders, under Pinochet's direct command, led the multinational "anti-communism campaign" known as Operation Condor, resulting in assassinations of prominent politicians and activists of the legal left in various Latin American countries, in Washington, D.C., and in Europe (see section below). In particular, CIA contact with the head DINA, Manuel Contreras, was established soon after the coup (in 1974, during the Junta period prior to official transfer of Presidential powers to Pinochet); in 1975, the CIA reviewed a warning that keeping Contreras as an asset might threaten human rights in the region. The CIA chose to keep him as an asset, and at one point even paid him. In addition to the CIA's maintaining of assets in DINA beginning soon after the coup, several CIA assets, such as CORU Cuban exile militants Orlando Bosch and Guillermo Novo, collaborated in DINA operations under the Condor Plan in the early years of Pinochet's presidency.While the U.S. tacitly supported the Pinochet regime after the 1973 coup, there is no evidence that the US was directly involved in the coup. However, the Church Report concluded that, while the US had not directly participated in the 1973 coup, it had supported an attempted coup in 1970, and had directed money to anti-Allende elements, including possibly terrorist groups, during the period 1970–1973. The armed forces under Pinochet's command had strong enough coordination and military resources, and sufficient motivation, to undertake the coup on their own, as evidenced by their earlier coup attempt known as the Tanquetazo."

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet

                    3. Comrade Joe profile image87
                      Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      The people voted Allende in.  The US assisted the rogue general Pinochet to overthrow the people's government, no voting was involved in the removal, neither literal nor figurative.  The US then financed and militarily supplied (along with Britain) Pinochet so as to be able to maintain power, given that the majority of the people backed Allende and socialism and would have overthrown Pinochet otherwise.

                      Trust us, we are very familiar with what happened in Chile, we didn't just scan a wikipedia entry only ten minutes ago.

                  2. Marquis profile image59
                    Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Lie

            3. Marquis profile image59
              Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Wilderness, I think we should stop. These Lefties are insane. They champion the people and then stave them. Then they blame capitalism.

              I think it is funny( not starving the people) because more human rights violations have been caused by people on the Left than Right.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                But those were not violations.   Anything coming from socialism or the left cannot be wrong as they know what is right for all peoples everywhere.  And are more than willing to force compliance...but might makes right, the ends justify the means, and the left leaning socialists thus do no wrong.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I laughed at the phrase " force compliance".

                  The right of course never try to force compliance, everybody is free to marry whoever they want and to do what they want with their own bodies! Yeah right.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh, there is plenty of force on both sides of the social question.  Just not so many concerning capitalism.

                    1. John Holden profile image59
                      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                      Oh stop it, I'll wet myself if you carry on with this comedy routine.

    2. Marquis profile image59
      Marquisposted 3 years ago

      Now we all know stuff like this brings out commies and other suspicious suspects who talk down on America.

      I do not care. America IS the last hope for Democracy. America kicks butt.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image85
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        America USED TO kick butt. Then we turned into arrogant assholes as soon as WWII ended, and you only need to look at: McCarthyism, the Southerners' furious attempts to preserve Segregation, and the oppression of the arts, humanities, and sciences in favor of bloating our already bloated military force to play schoolyard bully in countries we have no business being in...to see how far we've fallen.

        1. Marquis profile image59
          Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          America STILL kicks butt. The only ones who have turned into arrogant assholes are the pampered New Left idiots.

          Naturally a member of the New Left (like yourself) will go against McCarthyism because it singled out your little anti American commie buddies. After that event with the Rosenbergs, the American infrastructure had to figure out a way to single out traitorous people.

          McCarthyism had nothing to do with Segregation. Separate but Equal Clause had more to do with Segregation. McCarthyism was against people like yourself with insane ideas on how to ruin a nation economically and socially.

          The arts, humanities and sciences were not suppressed by McCarthyism. It was actually the complete opposite. Put down your Communist Manifesto and Leftist comic strips and learn proper history. Your lack of historic knowledge is showing.

          I notice Lefties like yourself are always crying about the U.S. over-bloated military. Yet you do not address the over-bloated militaries existing in China or North Korea. I think I know why. It is because you are a hypocrite and you love your Communist buddies over there. You would NEVER DO THAT, so you turn your biased attention span to the U.S.

          Schoolyard bully...only when an upstart talks trash and can not back it up. Countries we have no business in? Many of these countries take our money and send THEIR people over here at our prestigious colleges and universities. We have every right to be there.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image85
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "The arts, humanities and sciences were not suppressed by McCarthyism."

            I never said they were...? Do you not know what a list is? They're separate, unrelated aspects of American culture that have each done irreparable damage to society as a whole. How did you manage to pass high school English class with such poor reading comprehension?

            "I notice Lefties like yourself are always crying about the U.S. over-bloated military. Yet you do not address the over-bloated militaries existing in China or North Korea."

            Because China and North Korea are a joke and haven't been relevant for centuries. Who cares if their military forces are bloated? They're still never going to throw the first punch. And even if they do, they're going to be obliterated by everyone else.

            1. Marquis profile image59
              Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Let us see here stupid -

              "McCarthyism, the Southerners' furious attempts to preserve Segregation, and the oppression of the arts, humanities, and sciences in favor of bloating our already bloated military force to play schoolyard bully in countries we have no business being in...to see how far we've fallen."

              So stupid commie idiot, who were you talking about? Southerners or McCarthyism?

              This had nothing to do with my reading comprehension. It had everything to do with the vagueness of your object of preposition stupid.

              1. Zelkiiro profile image85
                Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Both, of course. Is it somehow impossible for problems to have multiple causes?

                1. Marquis profile image59
                  Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You and John are the multiple problems NOW. Socialism and Communism are the multiple problems in the world today.

              2. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So the branding of some singers as supposed communists and driving them out of their country doesn't count as suppression of the arts!

                Well I'm sure many will be very pleased to hear that.

    3. mariellenikka profile image62
      mariellenikkaposted 3 years ago

      ...because we don't know when to take and when to give?

     
    working