The US has a storied past of placing dictators in charge of countries we either overthrow or buy and then have the whole thing thrown back in our faces when it fails. It's not always the norm but with leaders like the Shah of Iran, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Husein and some indicators show Hamid Karzai to be the latest, why do we espouse demoracy and freedom yet place these people in power?
Good question. It seems to explain a lot of things. See both Obama and Harper congratulated Hamid Karzai on his "win" just the other day.
Oh Karzai you mean that guy that Bush put into power against the strong warnings of the northern alliance yeah what was Obama thinking congratulating that crook put into power by another president.
Obama was continuing the tradition, did you expect change?
Well Yeah he promised us, if you can't trust an American politician who can you trust. Sheeesh what is the world coming to. Next thing you'll be telling me that this recession wasn't a good thing for Americans.
Is there a recession? Obama promised us that it would change after his stimulus passed, gee, I feel betrayed.
This sort of situation seems to become a perverted bi-partisan thing and the gains are what? If we wage a war for a corrupt government how can any exit strategy ever develop? The gains are for our national security and how have we ensured that to happen? To continue now with this taint on the authority is an empty promise to the Afgan people and at a terrible expense to us.
Yeah I know it was in 2001, 2002, 2003, nothing has changed since. That's the real problem we are waging a war for a corrupt government, our own. The only people showing any real concern for the best interests of the Afghan people are the troops on the ground and the Afghan people. This is a continuation of a civil war that has been going on for 40 years now. Unfortunately we as a nation do not seem to understand that we can not put bandages on the world's problems. The only thing this war has ensured is casualties and more headaches for coming administrations.
We do this because the dictator is weak....and heavily dependent on outside support, and therefore easily manipulated.
That way multinational corporations can ransack resources......and what natural wealth the nation does have can be extracted through the debt created by American arms sales....amongst other things.
The Shah of Iran was terrified of what could happen to him if the U.S. wasn't there to support him....and spirit him out of the country when his people turned against him.
Look at the United Fruit Company, and then look at the regions, now nations, that it operated/s in (today its Chiquita, Dole, Del Monte). What kind of leaders are running these places, and what kind of resources....land, people, etc, are being abused by said corporation?....the first American-sponsored and supported multi-national corporation.
Where's Immortal Technique when I need him.
I would also submit that US leaders are also weak or at the least lack leadership. To allow big business to have its way in foreign countries and use our military at their bidding in some cases shows a lack of moral character. It undermines any authority and credibility we could have in influencing other countries that we have the best system out there. Instead we buy them off with bribes and disaster assistance to bolster our image. Kind of like how we bought off the indians with beads and such. Hey it worked then and it is still working.
The corruption is so deep and Americans seem to not allow the slime that leads us to suffer any shortfalls at the polls to correct it. Instead we are left with the petty bickering with party values (there a joke in there if I ever heard one) that divide us and allow their power to rule a polarized electorate. Congress truly believes in the divide and conquer strategy.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." The blue eyed boy turned dictator was not the intention. What they wanted was a puppet....and things went wrong. "oh what a tangled web..."
Because American foreign policy is not idealism, it is realism. We do what is best for us. Always. Even if we say we are doing it in the interest of others, and even if the interests of others happen to coincide, we do things for our own survival and success, nothing more nothing less.
We appoint dictators that are friendly to us. We don't care about freedom or democracy anywhere other than the USA, so if a dictator opens the door to trade, even if the majority of the population suffers, America is happy because it makes us rich.
Because those we call leaders in our government choose the short tearm gains over the long term consequences.
Because we enjoy coming back to oust them years later in bloody guerrilla wars. It's called job security DUH!!
and to sell arms to both sides too...
I don't know that it is an enjoyable experience but it is getting old. With the Karzai situation and the tainted elections how can we still be involved in defending a corrupted election with American lives? Why isn't the American people more outraged by this recent event? Is it finally come about that war and the threat of war is our solution to political problems overseas? Does it add fuel to the fire for the Taliban to muster up more support and expell the infidels from an illegal occupation?
Defence chief plans for 2011 Afghan pullout
November 5, 2009
"The head of the Canadian Armed Forces has issued orders to prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011 in the absence of a clear direction from government on the mission's future shape."
The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned.
I guess Canada beat us to the punch again. They are smarter than the US gives them credit for. First health care and now peace. Is anybody out there?
If we pull out of Afghanistan now, we will be right back there in a couple of years but with a bigger enemy to deal with.
We can't leave now.
"The reality is, public relations is only there to keep the peace with the blind folk."
What exactly do you think the Secret Service does?
Why, it's not like the US and NATO troops are there for the original reason anyway, to hunt down al Qaeda. That seems to have been forgotten about years ago.
Canada doesn't care about the proposed oil or gas pipe line through Afghanistan. We have more oil and gas than we'd use in decades, maybe centuries. If the company that wants the pipeline, you know the company Hamid Karzai used to work for, if they want it that bad then let them re-open negotiations with the Taliban like they did in 1997. Who knows, if they up the price enough maybe the Taliban will let them build the pipeline.
The Taliban and Al-Queda would take over that country within 6 months and be a training ground again. But this time they would be smarter and be stronger.
We can't just leave. Plus, we owe it to the regular citizens to protect them from harsh Islamic laws that the terrorist groups will impose like public execution of men, women and children.
I agree and if we follow suit as in Iraq we will be paying off the warlords in Afganistan as well.
The American public seems to have such selective reasoning when it comes to these things and the politicians seem to twist and spin the actions. If there was such an outrage voiced through demonstrations and elction results maybe something could be done. But all I see is bickering and finger pointing that gets nothing done. It is kind of like the chicken and the egg. Did the conditions dictate the war or is the war dictating the conditions?
The attack of 9/11 dictated the war, the rest has been profit driven and power plays.
It goes a lot farther back than 911 where the conditions dictating began. Remember this is not the only pie we have had our fingers in.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Karzai win the election, twice?
The USA didn't just pick some guy out of a crowd and put him in power, if you can call it that since the Taliban control 80% of the territory there.
Frankly, I'm sick of all the criticism of the USA. If it were up to me, I'd close every single base around the world and close our borders, and tell the rest of the world, hey, protect your won interests! The American people are sick and tired of shelling out money so you can have oil and food and peace!
No, just once and they tried to ouster him this past election
He was placed in charge temporarily when we first invaded Afganistan. There was an election after that with no real opposition and this last one had massive inconsistancies which were supposed to to be corrected in a run off election. It won't happen because Karzais' opponent can't get any assurance that the same thing won't happen. Do I smell a pay off?
I guess it speaks volumes about the US and how far off we got from the whole freedom and democracy thing. I think this is truly where America shows its' darkest side.
We tried isolationism...we assumed that got us Pearl Harbor....so then we tried the other extreme...intervention...that hasn't worked out either....
I personally believe we weren't isolationist....we were just minding our own business.
Well when you talk of the Japanese and WWll you have to look at our trade practices that resulted in contension with the oil crisis to their industries. While we were not in direct conflict with them we did bring about a determination.
The same thing applies in Europe with the lend lease program we instituted with England. While we were not directly involved as a military endeavor we nevertheless had a direct role in supplying the actors.
Not directly involved but engaged I would say.
As far as third world politics we have a well documented past of interference.
Half a century ago, a film called "Lawrence of Arabia" was released. In it, a soldier (Lawrence) helps the Arabian leader to unite all the provinces in the Arabian peninsula. In the end, the leader, calling himself "King", asks not to sit equal to him. "After all you are a soldier" he says.
This applies to the present American position. Due to their wealth, many countries request help from America, but they are not at all ready to accept America as their leader. Help should be upto the doorsteps only... it should not go deep into the kitchen....
True, but it doesn't really apply to Afghanistan, which has been mentioned earlier, because there the kitchen was full of people making bombs....
Okay! In every kitchen, the same thing is done. Why single out Afganistan? Are there no kitchens where bombs are made in America? Against whom are they going to be used? Like that, Afgans have the right to make bombs for their national security.
(These comments are for countering only. The American action in Afganistan is fully justified... for American security)
My dear man, do you think we are there for Americas security? Just ask your self after every retort to this post. What about the Oil?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL … q=oil.html
The United States is a very different country depending on whether you are on the outside looking in or on the inside looking out. In my opinion, we have never been interested in freedom and democracy beyond our borders.
We hold ourselves above moral and legal codes when it comes to things we think we know better about. Otherwise, Guantanamo Bay and the CIA would not exist.
If you were an outsider living in a foreign country that had a weak central government and small wars were constantly being waged, what type of solution would appeal to you?
Looking at American politics and the corrupt dealings congress has with the lobbyists and political friends they cater too, would you think that democracy was worth the fairness and riches it purports to create. Is this something that is worth another country spilling blood over?
Not just more headaches for future administrations but more money for the current one. Remember Dick Cheney and the 'H' Company Inc.?
A troubled nation always can not be brought in line without dictatorship. It also gathers all powers in one place and make interaction with others easy. Democracy always have different voices. When trouble comes to a dictator ruled country, he can take bold steps and set things right. In a democracy, the trouble will multiply to the whims of ruthless politicians. Moreover, a dictator will cease to be a politician and he has no obligation to be soft on lawless people. That settles everything easily.
I agree completely.
Unfortunately sometimes only dictators can control a chaotic /war torn or highly tribal country. In the past America, Britain and other countries have supported dictators in the hope of bringing stability, and supported other dodgy groups because as bad as they may have been, they were better than the alternative (like supporting the mujahadeen in afghanistan over soviet Russia). It is very cynical to think that these things were done entirely out of self interest.
I agree that the short term achievement of obtaining control may be to install a dictator but you have to ask yourself to who he answers and who is used. The appearance of control is at the core of the action but don't kid yourself with the politicians creed of spreading democracy. The action is counter to the dictator and he won't leave without a fight.
If you wish to believe that our backing of the Mujahadeen was to win Afganistans freedom from the invasion of the Soviets you are deluding yourself. The purpose was to get someone else to weaken the Soviets for us. If it was for a moral and just purpose why would we have hidden behind the foreign arms we provided. If you listen to so many speeches of the past and some of the present ones you will hear our politicians say so many times, "our interests" when they tie our actions to the country we are messing with.
The purposes of weakening soviet Russia and helping to protect other countries from the tyranny of communism are not mutually exclusive. And the reason we 'hid behind foreign arms' as you say is because during the cold war there was an acronym for what a direct war between Russia and the west would have been like - MAD - which stands for mutually assured destruction.
Going with the gist of what you say you enter a very slippery slope. Using instability and corrupt players to further a political agenda by a foreigh power is not the way to install a new political structure because it shows from the outset that the ends justify the means. But American politics have a tendency to show the world this side and then speak out the side of our mouth about how corrupt and immoral they are.
Bottom line is we used a unstable country to justify our war on Russia to further "Our Interests". Then we left them to fend for themselves against a very ruthless bunch of terrorists. Not one of our shinning moments I would offer.
What interest were these? the main interest we had was in stopping the expansion of communism, which was a good thing. And to critise western governments for both abandoning afghanistan to terrorist (not strictly true, but thats another issue) and for trying to free them from the same people is a bit hypocritical. I'm afraid in this case you can't have your cake and eat it too.
I do agree that it can be a slippery slope though, and I'm not saying it's always going to justified, just that people are being far to cynical in thinking that these things have been done primarily for selfish reasons and without caring about what happens.
As for the spreading democracy thing, that only became a buzzword under Bush. Before that spreading democratic government was seen as a bonus not the primary goal of foreign policy. You can't critice pre-Bush governments for not being consistent with their successors.
The reasons why America is involved in war in the Middle East are not about installing democracy and freedom for the people of those nations. Not entirely. There is no one real motive. Yes, it is about oil and money and power. It is not about conservative or labour politics. The war in Gaza is not isolated from Afghanistan or Iraq and British interests are US interests. The french have facilitated infiltration of England by allowing passage of pakistanis. Britain is heading towards a civil war and its government is to blame for its liberal politics. However, there has been a structured immigration policy to maintain a failing economy. I have for a long time flaunted my view that the Allies should not be in the Middle East but I have slowly realised the wrongs of that view. Power will always exist and whom wields that power will always get the brunt of liberal protest. The USA is widely criticised but that is just too bad. I believe in war, it is hard not too. War exists and it always has. If the Allies do not occupy strategic positions, the West will fall. I do not agree with all the ideals of our leaders but if it is not the West is will be some other. Whoever leads, innocent people will die.
There will be another world war.
You might want to read this article by a UK journalist, Christopher King.
Russian gas cuts – a United States and Afghanistan connection?
To catch up on this whole pile of crap you might also want to watch this video.
Uzbek terror and the UK/USA
Here's a couple of maps showing the geographical relationship between Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan to understand the desire for the pipeline through Afghanistan.
Oh great, the pipeline conspiracy thing again...
Good to see the tinfoil hat is still receiving signals...
tk, is it that hard for you to believe the rest of the world might just want to live the american dream? A pipeline to India? Gee, must be a conspiracy!? Sounds like a great idea to me.
Not all that long ago, there was no USA.
Maybe this one government thing go be a go ahead.
How does being in denial help tksensei?
So, at your meetings who brings the best snacks, the Moon Landing crowd, the JFK crowd, or the Bush Blew up the World Trade Center crowd?
(I assume you don't have enough members for a Pipeline crowd)
There is a song that describes your views and it parallels your thinking. "For once I was blind, but now can see" from Amazing Grace.
The conspiracy theory defence of a stance is very weak and only exposes the inability of the one offering it to deal with facts. I am sorry you revert to this tactic as it lessens your credibility.
Fact remains that "Our Interests" in the middle east are based on oil and our politicians are bought by the oil companies.
Exactly, that and the Israeli lobby. A wise man just recently posted this as a comment to a Hub that I read "Taking physical land is not New Covenant in nature."
US does that to keep people of that country under constant suppression and to prevent them from claiming liberty or rights, thus, it will prevent those people from thinking of attacking US or Israel… It’s very simple. Everyone knows that.
America needs to keep its power and sphere of influence...the easiest way to do that is through backing dictators with lots of money. Its easier to control one person who controls everyone else than to control an entire population.
Yeah - Hitler is a good example. Only problem is sometimes they get ahead of themselves.
No...the leaders in this country aren't weak.....not all anyway....
Marijuana is illegal in the United States thanks to one man...Andrew Mellon.
Appointed to be Secretary of the Treasury by President Herbert Hoover, when the Great Depression began Mellon advised Hoover to liquidate assets, including labor....how would this be done?
The Mellon family had gained ownership of Gulf Oil....a company that had come to the Mellon Bank for loans, and then over time lost control when they couldn't make their payments. Dupont, the petrochemical company would buy its oil from Gulf Oil.
With this said, with Mellon in office, Dupont lobbied to him to ban the use of hemp, which was in competition with Dupont over the making of paper (Dupont used the wood pulp process).
Paper is actually better made from hemp, and it's cost of production ends up being much cheaper.....but Dupont did not own hemp stocks....
The decision was made to make hemp/marijuana illegal....now a way of making this action plausible to the larger American population (many of whom used marijuana).....
The Federal Board of Narcotics was formed through the Department of the Treasury, under the watchful eye of Mellon. He appointed his nephew to head up this new organization and, in conjunction with the support of William Randolf Hearst (Hearst Castle...former owner of the Los Angeles Times..which for awhile was the largest land owning entity in Southern California (if I remember correctly) created a campaign of misinformation, focused in California, to use race mixed with weed to achieve their ends.....
Anslinger, Mellon's nephew, helped propogate the idea that marijuana caused insanity, and was "mostly being used by lawless Mexicans and Negroes."
Marijuana was banned....
Racism is used by those who seek to gain politically and economically through the government, which ends up just being a front operation for big business.....
I've also read that Rockefeller played a big part in banning marijuana because he/they invested heavily in the pharmaceutical industry in the early 1920s. You know because of the many health benefits of marijuana and because it is a natural product it could not have a patent put on it.
Now the pharmaceutical industry and organized crime are the only ones that benefit from making marijuana illegal. Well them and politicians and cops that take bribes from organized crime and pharmaceutical lobbys.
You cannot be a dictator until you are in charge, so it is impossible to 'place a dictator' anywhere. Look at Mugabe, he was fine for decades, and then went crazy.
Sure you can as with Malaki and Karzai we placed them in charge while we set up an interim government around them. Then the elections verified their right to rule. We did it a few more sinister ways with Saddam Hussein and Noriega and the like. How about the Shah of Iran. We have a long history of this activity.
That is your opinion.
I can find no logical, reasonable, or functional basis for its being banned aside from the illicit markets that the same cronies who erected the bans benefit from....but hey...what do I know...
All a dictator needs is funding, arming, and a minority population to rally around him...like Saddam and his minority Sunni power base in Iraq...the Shah of Iran and his familial and cluster of economic and social elite who benefitted from his push to power atop an American funded and planned coup.
Look at the School of the Americas....look at the list of graduates and then look into the nations of Central and South America...look at the ranking officers....look at men like Manuel Noriega.....
"Regional influences, both political and criminal, fueled the explosive growth of drug trafficking through Honduras in the early 1980's. In 1980 and 1981, for example, the head of military intelligence in Panama, then Col. Manuel Noriega, teamed up with his counterpart at the head of the Honduran G-2, Col. Torres, to smuggle first arms(on behalf of Marxist rebels in El Salvador) and then drugs.."
(Both men are graduates of the School of the Americas)
"Noriega was originally recruited as an agent by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency in 1959, while still a young military cadet studying in Peru"
(how does a man from Peru become the president of Panama?)
"He went on the CIA's payroll in 1967. The next year, a military coup assisted by the U.S. Army's 470th Military Intelligence Group gave Noriega his opportunity to take charge of Panama's own G-2. His new job made him a priceless source for the American services, which used Panama as a listening post for much of Latin American."
(as well as ensuring its control of the most important canal system arguably on the planet, as well as enabling American multinational corporations with major land holdings throughout Central American, including Panama, to keep control)
"In August 1986, only two months after Noriega's battering in the American media, North (Marine Col. Oliver North) and the CIA's Duane Clarridge discussed a request from Noriega for help in countering his bad publicity in return for assassinating the Sandinista leadership....Within days, North gave his approval for a public relations firm, which handled much of North's fundraising for the Contras, to represent Panamanian government interests. And North met with Noriega that September, with National Security Advisor John Pointdexter's approval, to review sabotage missions in Nicaragua."
So, this is how one gets to be a dictator, and how one can keep such power....
How does one lose it?
"Noriega lost his most ardent defenders within the (Reagan) administration, North and Casey, when the Iran-Contra scandal blew up in November 1986. As the whole White House program of covert support for the Contras came crashing down, Noriega suddenly became expendable. In January 1987, the Costa Rican government extradited Floyd Carlton to the United States, triggering the events that led to Noriega's indictment in Miami in early 1988."
"Noriega's alleged drug dealing was 'relatively small by Latin American standards'(New York Times)" and in the words of a State Department official, "We don't know anything today (early 1988) about Tony Noriega (not Manuel?) that we didn't know a year ago. What's changed is the politics and Panama, not Tony Noriega."
I will close with this segment...
"Perhaps the most striking evidence of a political double standard was the silence of the Bush administration on the composition of the post-invasion regime (in Panama). The U.S. installed president of Panama, Guillermo Endara, had been a director and secretary of Banco Interoceanico, targeted by the FBI and DEA, and named by Floyd Carlton (the man who spilled the beans on Noriega) as a major front for laundering Colombian drug money. The bank reportedly served both the Cali and Medellin cartels. Endara's business partner, Carlos Eleta, who reportedly laundered CIA funds into Endara's presidential campaign in the spring of 1989 was arrested that year in Georgia for allegedly conspiring to import more than a half ton of cocaine into the United States each month. Prosecutors dropped the indictment following the invastion (of Panama), citing lack of evidence."
Mugabe crazy? How much American CIA-delivered dollars did he stuff away....that his family still holds on to. I can get that information..there is actually a great publication entitled "Still Waiting for the Jubillee: Pragmatic Solutions to the Third World Debt Crisis".. I have it in my car..
Check it out....
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/835..you can't read it at this site...but from this it can probably be found...
another is "Cocaine Politics" by Peter Scott and Jonathan Marshall
United Fruit, now Chiquita, Dole, and Del Monte, has an overwhelming control of land resources throughout Central and South America....to gain these lands they had to throw other peoples off.
Those other peoples are still there.......and I believe that instead of supporting the multinationals and the oligarchies that they erect and support, that a new land reform needs to take place.
Imbalance breeds corruption, poverty, crime, and death.
When the imbalances are contrived, especially by a force that Americans can control if they use leverage properly, there should be a greater push to knock them down.
Look at Nigeria dealing with oil mulitnational corporations.....since allowing oil exploitation Nigeria has gone from complete self-sufficiency in terms of food (because they used their own lands) to having to export food..because companies like Shell have manipulated and corrupted the Nigerian government. The recent out of court settlement with the Ogoni people (15.5 million dollars) point to a catastrophe in this, and other resource rich nations......
It's an irrelevant law made by corrupted men through a jury-rigged process of fraudulent manipulation of the public....
If you wish to simply submit to ridiculousness that is your own perogative.
In the military one has to follow orders....however not all orders.
Unlawful orders, or orders that contradict either actual law or some aspect of "common sense" can be disobeyed....although one takes this tack at their own peril, because having a no good nco or officer, who makes orders irrespective of reality, can twist and turn rules and reports almost however they wish....
The criminalization of marijuana is an illegal order....at least to those who understand how it became illegal...
The use of political office to manipulate our legal code in this way was against the law...and a far greater crime than weed.....
That type of mentality....criticize the pot-buyer-grower-user for breaking the law while turning a blind eye to the travesty of justice that started the whole thing......nonsense.
No, it's the law. Desperate, irrational comparisons to an order in the military are nothing but the ridiculous grasping at straws of childish potheads.
I like how you avoid the subject that I mentioned to follow along on your mundane, superficial "law and order" babble..
That is fine....
Again....what about the legal fraud that made weed illegal??
The law may be mundane in the actual sense of the word, but it is surely not superficial. The whining of frustrated potheads is superficial.
It's a policy called "selections not elections" (research it) The goal is to have a puppet in place who will not block US corporations from raping the resources because he cares more for his pocket than his people. Even if we know the truth we will not stop it. Our quality of life depends on the process.
In the case of iraq hussan was the only one that could keep his subjects in line...but dubya had a rush and killed him anyway.
who cares about weed...it just makes you fat and causes one to get traffic tickets...for driving too slow.
There are so many worse drugs to consume. Forget about weed. It is a non-issue so far as danger to self and the community. If you are worried about suffering insanity you have a better prognosis with weed. Take a look at the common side effects of ant-depressant drugs and you will find that not only do they carry a good chance of worsening depression but also far worse psychiatric and physical illness. Make sense of that one under the law.
Yeah, that's how the law works, "This one's not as bad as that one!"
tksensei, it's unfortunate, again, that you use epithets and
"it's the law" when it's the "little guy" you speak or write to......
and of course ignore the abuse of power from higher up.
But then again, perhaps you don't believe that using political office, or an appointed government position, like the Secretary of the Treasury, to take out corporate competition and ensure a monopolistic control of the marketplace for your product (wood based paper).....
Of course, I don't hear any outcry about the blatant use of racism...."lawless Mexicans and Negroes" published in newpapers, purported in churches, and pushed into the minds of the white population nation-wide.......but more focused in Southern California (where most Mexican-Americans reside).
And, being that these characterizations Mexican-Americans and African Americans was used to inflate housing prices in the new and expanding, suburban subdivision specifically of Southern California.....and white flight...ensuring the success of unconstitutional laws (even for the time period) denying home buying access to ethnic minorities......"The Holy Land-A Suburban Memoir" by D.J. Waldie takes a beautiful look at this, as does Fogelson's "The Fragmented Metropolis".
Aside from all this....the illegal, massive deportation of Mexican-Americans (mostly legal, documented residents of this nation) to Mexico from regions all across the nation followed shortly after the criminalization of Marijuana.....and of course, Andrew Mellon was still sitting as Treasury Secretary then as well......
"Mi Familia", a must see film, while not focused on this aforementioned action (deportation) specifically, enables the viewer to understand what occurred through the story of a Mexican-American family living in Los Angeles at the time.
Corporate interests demand to hold on to their power.....they ensure one of their own get into power, make sure he does what they want him to do...at the cost of the dignity and human rights of millions of people nation-wide (acceptable because their "race" is deemed inferior).....
and then any act to expose this as a crime in and of itself becomes "pot-head whining."
I just think many people have their justice-related priorties backwards...
Since these types of acts.....corporations manipulating public office for their own purposes at the expense of the people subject to their actions, still are wide-spread in this nation, it shows how the American people have lost their truest sense of judgement, and have become lost in a sea of political pandering, "racial" favoritism, scapegoating, and identifying with the aggressor.
It's too bad.
I can see why most in here ignore your posts tksensei. There is never any substance to them.
So the best counter that you can muster is a stereotyped epithet?
When there is no knowledge or logic to reinforce a thought, the best defense is to call names, or so your behavior shows.
All this means is that the future projection of words towards you is of little purpose, like talking about civil rights with Celia's master (Celia, a Slave..check it out)...
Keep your laws, and I will keep on living one glorious day at a time.
I think we war tru proxy a lot.For many reasons. The first and foremost of those is to further our agenda .whatever that might be at the time. However i disagree that. we put dictators in charge as a policy. Often the most well intended and seemingly stable,men capable for leadership in troubled country's are quickly corrupted by the huge influx of U S military aide and financial aide . We create a monster so to speak. But i feel passionately that we never intended to.
And in closing I am America, for better or worse .As a nation i feel we strive harder than any other to right our mistakes. '
And i will always speak in her defense
Spoken as a true patriot but are you allowing a veil to be pulled over your eyes?
Take a look at this:
http://www.bluebloggin.com/2008/01/11/h … ors-redux/
Dictators that America has supported, or still supports, in full knowledge of them being so include: The Saudi Royal family, Saddam Hussein, The Shah of Iran, General Musharraf - and this is just of the top of my head. America knows what its doing, so do Canada Britain and others. I'm not saying thats a bad thing as you'll know if you read my earlier commnents, but your wrong about people turning into dictators only after the fact of American support.
by peachy 7 years ago
Why does the owner of a cat circumcision it?My neighbor kept a stray cat. She is a muslim. Why does she have to circumcision the cat ( male)? Is it compulsory?After it was circumcised, the stray cat became plump and furry.
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 11 years ago
Do you admire any dictator? If yes, who is he?
by PhenomWriter 11 years ago
Please tell me it will not be, because that idea frightens me...
by Morgan Anthony 7 years ago
Why does everyone want to stay young?I, for one, am looking forward to aging. It will come in due time, and I wlil be able to experience life and nature's laws in their truest form, instead of fighting them. Why this war against aging? It's another way of saying aging is a bad thing....it's really...
by Daniel J. Neumann 24 months ago
What's the biggest threat to the United States of America today?I vote it's the political divide entrenching. Nobody expects a civil war—not even me.
by Kimberly Vaughn 9 years ago
If you woke up as The President of the United States, what is the first thing you would do?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|